Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Money) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with. namely:

Morecambe Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mr. H. McQuade, 92, South Wellington Street, Glasgow, is at present receiving treatment from the Pensions Ministry and is
detained in hospital for the purpose and yet is refused any treatment allowance for his wife and family, who are at present being kept by the parish council, although the treatment which is required is the direct outcome of the late War; and if he will have this case reconsidered?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As I have already informed the hon. Member, allowances are only payable where the patient has suffered loss by reason of being prevented through his treatment from continuing to carry on a remunerative occupation. This was not the case with regard to the patient referred to, the circumstances of whose family at the present time, I am informed, are the same as those which have obtained for several years past. I may add that the Glasgow War Pensions Committee, who investigated the circumstances of the case, declined to support the man's claim.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If a man is out of employment or is kept from working, are we to understand that because he happens to be unemployed he is to be treated as always unemployed, and is not to receive any treatment allowance?

Major TRYON: This particular case is based on the fact that the man has for many years not been earning wages.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not uncommon for ex-service men to be out of work for years, and, if this man starts work, will he reconsider this particular case?

Major TRYON: I shall be very happy to consider any relevant facts which may support the claim, but I do not think that it is well founded.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STREET ACCIDENTS (TRAMWAYS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is, approximately, the proportion of tramway streets to non-tramway streets in the Metropolitan area;
and what was the proportion of street accidents, fatal and otherwise,, in these two types of streets, respectively?

Commander BELLAIRS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give comparable statistics of accidents in tramway streets and streets with flexible traffic only?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): All available figures are contained in Tables 16 and 17 of the London Traffic Committee's Report on Street Accidents in Greater London published in March, 1927. I am sending copies of these tables to my hon. Friends. I have no information as to accidents in tramway streets outside the Metropolitan area.

Sir H. BRITTAN: With regard to the accidents in the streets in the Metropolitan area, is it not a fact that those in the tramway streets are out of all proportion to and enormously greater than those in non-tramway streets?

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt they are considerably greater, but my hon. Friend must remember that, obviously, the tramway streets are those streets which are most used.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Do I understand that the Minister does not consider that the first and second parts of this question have necessarily any relation to each other?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether any streets in London are more used, for instance, than the Strand and Piccadilly, which are non-tramway streets?

Colonel ASHLEY: In the majority of cases tramway streets are more used than other streets.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the cost of the proceedings in connection with the Joint Committee on the Railway Bills; and, having regard to the fact that all the charges will ultimately fall on the community, whether the Government will consider legislation simplifying the procedure?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Government have no present intention of introducing legislation on the subject. I would remind my hon. and
gallant Friend that procedure on Private Bills by way of a Joint Committee is less expensive than if the Bills were considered by separate Committees of each House.

Commander BELLAIRS: While recognising that economy is effected by a Joint Committee, is it not possible to alter the system whereby two sets of lawyers are employed at vast expense, cancelling each other out?

Mr. BARNES: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will lay upon the Table a White Paper containing the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee upon the five Railway (Road Transport) Bills, together with his Report to the Joint Committee to which the Bills have been referred?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not propose to lay a White Paper. It is not the practice to publish Reports and representations relating to private Bills.

Mr. BARNES: Seeing the public interests involved, cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate in some way what evidence was given, in view of the decision not to submit it to the Committee upstairs?

Colonel ASHLEY: No; I think it would be unwise to depart from the usual practice.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not unfair, after all the trouble taken by this Committee and the evidence obtained, and in view of the fact that the public have a great interest in the subject to which it relates, that the Report should not be forthcoming? What is the use of having a Committee?

Colonel ASHLEY: The responsibility for the advice tendered to the Committee must rest with the Minister, and no one else.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is quite proper to use the precedent of a private Bill in the case of Bills with such far-reaching effects?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Bills under discussion by the Joint Committee are private Bills.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that there is going to be no Report at all, and that it will be impossible for Members to get this information through the ordinary channels?

MOTOR PASSENGER COACHES (SPEED).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is examining into the question of the increased speed of large passenger motor coaches, especially on the country roads; whether special warnings are issued to the companies concerned against arranging a programme of journeys which practically compel the drivers to proceed at excessive speed; and whether his attention has been called to the advertised list of journeys, mileage, and times, as for example, London to Norwich 4½ hours, London to Southampton 3½ hours, and London to Newcastle in 12 hours, the latter journey including time to stop for meals?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply to this question. The responsibility for enforcing the law as to the speed of motor vehicles rests in each area on the chief officer of police; in the Metropolitan Police district special attention is being given to the speed of these large vehicles. I have seen advertisements of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, hut apart from specific action taken in regard to vehicles found to be proceeding at excessive speeds the police have no power to control the programme of journeys which may be advertised by the companies concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the dangers is the strain on the drivers proceeding on these long journeys at high speeds, and is it not obvious that the law must be broken for a motor omnibus to go from London to Newcastle in 12 hours?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the first point, that is a matter with which the police cannot deal. As far as the second point is concerned, the police must have evidence that at some particular part of the journey the speed of 12 miles an hour has been exceeded. All I can say is that, with regard to traffic of this advertised character, the police are well aware by now of the speeds advertised, and if they succeed in obtaining sufficient evidence that the speed at any part of the journey is grossly excessive, I have no doubt they will take the necessary steps.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this not driving a motor coach through an Act of Parliament?

Captain BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of setting some of his well-known police traps for these vehicles?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is only putting in a little more curt form what I was endeavouring to explain to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are compelled by their employers to do these journeys, otherwise their services are dispensed with, and will he not consider whether some steps cannot be taken against the employers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am advised that in cases of this kind, if evidence is given that the men were compelled or induced by their employers to break the law in this manner, the employers might be found to be equally guilty.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these bills advertising the journey, say, from Glasgow to Liverpool advertise a time that cannot be done without breaking the law, and that the bill itself, advertised by the employers, is a direct incitement to the employés to break the law? Cannot he take action against employers for inciting their employés to break the law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have tried to explain to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull that the police must have evidence before they can go into a court of law and prosecute either driver or owner for a criminal offence; and after attention has been called to this matter to-day I am quite satisfied that efforts will be made in different parts of the country where the speed is grossly excessive to get legal evidence of it, and proceedings will follow.

Major COLFOX: Is there any legal limit to the number of hours or the number of miles which any one driver can drive these big, fast vehicles in any one day?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I think there is no legal limit.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the law
is only 12 miles an hour, and whether that is not much too low and ought to be extended to 20 miles an hour?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That would be a matter for legislation, which could only be done by this House.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What is the law at present?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Twelve miles an hour for heavy vehicles.

PASSENGER FARES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport how many complaints, official and unofficial, regarding increases in passenger fares he has forwarded to the companies concerned for their observations?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received representations on this subject from five local councils and four associations and have in each case forwarded a copy to the companies concerned.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a reply in any special case, and, if so, will he publish it?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, because my communications to them are so recent.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some weeks ago he stated that he had forwarded a communication to one of the omnibus companies? Has he received any reply to that communication?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down another question giving me definitely the name of the company to which he refers, I will give him an answer.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Mr. GILLETT: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount derived from the motor tax receipts for each of the years 1926 and 1927; showing the number of light cars, commercial vehicles, omnibuses, and motor bicycles separately, together with the sum of money collected from the owners of these types of vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am sending the hon. Member two statements giving the information asked for.

MOTOR CAR ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 8.
asked the Home Secretary how many charges under
the Motor Car Acts were brought in 1922, 1925, and 1927, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can give certain figures for 1922, 1925 and 1926. Those for 1927 are not yet available. In the three years first mentioned, the numbers of persons prosecuted for offences against the Motor Car Acts in England and Wales were 82,321, 150,762 and 163,344. Offences of drunkenness while in charge of motor vehicles and revenue offences committed by motorists are not included.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Are the charges of drunkenness while in charge available separately?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I think I can get them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA SALES (CASH BONUSES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the evidence submitted to him by a London newspaper concerning alleged frauds in the practice of selling tea with cash bonuses; and to what decision he has come?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The papers forwarded by a firm of solicitors acting for a London newspaper are under consideration but it is not yet practicable to announce any decision.

Mr. MORRISON: Am I to take it that if when these papers have been considered the Home Secretary finds that the public are being swindled in this way, action will follow?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As soon as I am in a position to do so, I will let the hon. Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE INDUSTRY (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).

Mr. RILEY: 13.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to certain textile firms in the West Riding where young persons under 18 years of age are being employed on the two-shift system, and where the second shift is working until 10 p.m.; and how many firms are working young persons on the two-shift system and, approximately, the number of young persons involved?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Orders permitting young persons of 16 years of age and upwards to be employed on this system have been granted to seven textile
firms in the West Riding. I could not state, without special inquiry, the number of young persons actually employed at present under these Orders but the aggregate number that, the firms proposed to employ at the time they applied for permission, was 300 odd.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking the inspectors to have special supervision over those factories in order that he may discover some of the effects on young persons under this system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that it is necessary to give special instructions, because they are always very carefully looking after all questions which affect the health of employés in the factories, and this is one of the questions which will naturally be kept before them.

Mr. RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this system is to be extended and whether it, is desirable that young persons, especially girls, should be out at work after 10 o'clock at night?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must confess that it seems to me no worse for them to be out at work at 10 o'clock at night than going home from the cinema after 10 o'clock at night. There is no difference.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the factories are some distance away from the girls' homes and that they are compelled to travel considerable distances in country places, and does he not think that it is inadvisable that a system of that sort should be extended?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Every case that comes before me is carefully considered—the distance from the factory, the means of locomotion, every relevant consideration of that kind. I have had no complaints from the employés themselves, none whatever, and I am certainly not satisfied, as I have explained in Debates in this House before, that there is any harm from this system.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if when these permits are granted any time is fixed for a reconsideration of the question by the Home Office or are they given for all time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I must ask for that question to be put down. I am not quite certain, and I do not want to give an answer without looking into the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, in granting permission, consideration is given to the question of education and social facilities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system interferes with the education and social facilities of girls, and are those questions considered?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understands the position. It does not mean that these girls work from six o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It means that if the ordinary period of eight hours ceases at 10 o'clock at night it begins, of course, at two o'clock in the afternoon, and the girls have all the morning free for getting fresh air.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

WALES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Education what views he has formed regarding the most immediate needs of Welsh education as a result of his visit to South Wales; and what action he proposes to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the purpose of my right hon. Friend's recent visit to South Wales. In any case, I am afraid that I could not undertake to survey the whole field of Welsh education within the narrow limits of an answer to a Question.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the Noble Lady say whether the right hon. Gentleman's visit was not an official one and will she say for what purpose it was undertaken?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

Sir R. THOMAS: I put down the question to the Minister, and may I very respectfully point out that he should be, here to answer it.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the duty of the President of the Board of Education in turn to visit all parts of the country as long as he is the Minister of Education?

MEDICAL SERVICES.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education the cost of the school medical services classified under medical officers, nurses, school clinics and treatment by dentists and oculists, for the last three years, respectively?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid that the returns made by Local Authorities do not enable me to analyse the expenditure under the heads named in the question, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, for my hon. Friend's information, the total cost of the school medical services for the last three years for which returns are available.

Following are the particulars:


—
Gross expenditure.
Receipts.
Net cost.




£
£
£


1924–25
…
1,307,228
53,899
1,253,329


1925–26
…
1,441,415
60,970
1,380,445


1926–27
…
1,516,995
66,010
1,450,985

SCHOOL BUILDINGS (EXPENDITURE).

Dr. V. DAVIES: 13 and 17.
asked the President of the Boarl of Education (1), the expenditure on old school buildings during the last three years for which statistics are available to bring them to a condition suitable for modern requirements, the amount paid locally and nationally for this purpose, and the number of schools so treated; (2), the expenditure on new school buildings during the last three years for which statistics are available, the amount paid locally and nationally towards this expenditure, and the average cost per place provided for scholars?

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend is afraid that the returns made to the Board by the Local Authorities do not enable him to give a complete
answer to these questions, but he will send my hon. Friend such information as can be derived from an analysis of the returns.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the recent accidents in schools, he will take steps to have the existing law amended in order to give local authorities the unfettered right to satisfy themselves that the educational well-being and the personal safety of all children in their area are insured either in institutions provided by them or in other institutions, so that they may not only satisfy themselves as to their condition, but be empowered to require suitable minimum provisions?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given him in reply to a similar question on the 2nd April as to the powers of local authorities in these matters. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose of enlarging these powers at the present time.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education what are the recommendations of his Department to local education authorities with regard to the closing of elementary and secondary schools where children are suffering from infectious disease?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Memorandum on Closure of and Exclusion from School, issued jointly by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, a copy of which I am sending him.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the estimated cost per child in the public elementary schools (leaving out of account all payments in respect of teachers' pensions) for the year 1928–29; and what was the corresponding figure for 1927–28?

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend thinks that an attempt to name a figure for average per capita expenditure in advance would be misleading.
The actual expenditure per child in 1926–27 (the last year for which actual figures are available) was 236s. 8d., and the Board's estimates for 1928–29 are sufficient to provide for a somewhat higher figure.

CLASS-ROOMS (HEIGHT).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education if any local authorities have recently submitted plans for elementary schools showing class-rooms 12 feet in height or higher; and in how many cases has it been suggested to the local education authority that the height should be reduced below 12 feet?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Building Regulations issued in 1914 provided for the reduction below 12 feet of the height of rooms under certain conditions, and it has since been the practice of the Board to suggest a reduction in the height in cases where those conditions exist, and they are satisfied that adequate ventilation and lighting can be secured. My right hon. Friend has no record of the number of cases in which this suggestion has been made.

WATER SUPPLY, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. COVE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the public elementary schools of the County of Nottingham, reported in 1925 as having no water supply at all, are still without a supply; what steps are being taken to make those schools comply with the Board's regulations in respect of a water supply and at what date the provision of a water supply to these schools may be expected?

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend has no particulars which would enable him to give a detailed reply to this question, but if the hon. Member will inform him of the name of any school at which he has reason to believe that there is no adequate water supply, my right hon. Friend would be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. COVE: Is the Noble Lady aware that the medical officer of health reported that there were 51 schools with-
out water supply, and what steps have the Board taken to get a water supply for those 51 schools?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think I must ask the hon. Member to put down a question in that form.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DEAF AND DUMB PERSONS (WELFARE WORK).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether county associations, corresponding to those for the blind, are being formed to deal with persons over school age suffering from deaf-dumbness or acquired deafness, in order to reduce the social and industrial hardships of their affliction and to ensure that previous public expenditure on their education may become economically remunerative; and whether he will take steps to enable local authorities, such as boards of guardians and education committees, to pay affiliation fees to these associations and the expenses of delegates who may attend the occasional conferences of these bodies?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that there is a movement on foot for the establishment of county associations of this kind, and I have already intimated to those who are moving in the matter that, while I am prepared sympathetically to consider applications made by boards of guardians for my approval of the payment of subscriptions to associations for aiding the deaf and dumb. I see at present no sufficient ground for sanctioning the other payments which are suggested.

MENTAL PATIENTS (DETENTION AND DISCHARGE).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health what is the longest period for which a patient has been kept under detention by prolongation of a stated term of leave of absence under Section 55 of the Lunacy Act, 1890; in how many instances during the last three years have patients been kept for a year and upwards in this condition, which precludes any assurance of freedom and leaves them liable to be sent back to the detention from which their friends wished to release them; and, in view of the de-
pressing effect of such a practice upon those subjected to it, will he take steps to secure its discontinuance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for by the hon. Member in regard to the practice of granting leave of absence on trial under Section 55 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, can only be obtained by an examination of the records of all institutions for the insane, and I do not feel justified in calling for this. If, however, the hon. Member is aware of any particular case in which it is thought hardship has resulted from an unduly prolonged period of leave, and will supply me with details, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, according to a recent ruling of the Board of Control, the procedure under Section 49 of the Lunacy Act of 1890, for the examination of a certified person by two doctors with a view to discharge, is now held to require that the two doctors, instead of visiting once each with an interval of seven days and giving an indepedent opinion, should visit the patient together on two separate occasions with a like interval of seven days; and, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission recommended equality of opportunity for rich and poor and that the fees now required, as a result of this ruling, for four medical visits are, in most cases, prohibitive, will he introduce legislation at an early date to simplify and facilitate the procedure so as to place the opportunity for discharge conferred by this Section within reasonable reach of the poor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The ruling of the Board of Control referred to was given after full consideration of the terms of the Section. The point raised by the hon. Member has been noted for consideration in the event of any fresh legislation being introduced.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a hardship upon the poor as against the rich by this practice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is because I recognise that fact that I gave this answer.

MATERNAL MORTALITY (COMMITTEE).

Mr. DAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to announce the names of the special Committee he proposes to appoint on maternal mortality; and the terms of reference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to do so.

Mr. DAY: Will the Committee have power to inquire into additional financial assistance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member had better await the terms of reference.

PUBLIC BATHS, METROPOLITAN AREA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what is the number of public baths, both covered and open, in the Metropolitan area; and what number of these have been added during the past five years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The swimming baths in the Administrative County of London provided by public authorities are: covered, 101, open, 19; seven of these have been provided during the last five years, two of them being in place of old baths.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the special additional facilities for sun ray treatment which are available in public baths on the Continent are being used in baths in London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that fact.

VACCINATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Vaccination will be published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Report is now being printed and will be published at an early date.

TUBERCULOSIS (SANATORIUM TREATMENT).

Captain BOURNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the total sum expended during the past financial year upon sanatorium treatment for tuberculosis by the Exchequer and by local authorities, respectively; and the average cost of treatment per patient?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total sum expended in any financial year upon sanatorium treatment proper is not separable from the amount spent on other forms of treatment of tuberculosis, and the information asked for in the first part of the question is, therefore, not available. The average cost of residential treatment during 1926–27 was 49s. 3½d. per patient per week.

Dr. DAVIES: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend so to alter the accounts that in future years we shall be able to get the cost of sanatorium treatment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is rather difficult to separate sanatorium treatment from other treatment in residential institutions.

Captain BOURNE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether any, and, if so, how many, local authorities have adopted any system of observation of patients who have been discharged from tuberculosis sanatoria; and the percentage of such patients who are permanently cured of tuberculosis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The tuberculosis schemes of all local authorities provide for the continued observation of patients discharged from sanatoria. I have, however, no figures which would enable me to answer the second part of the question.

CREAM SUBSTITUTES.

Viscount SANDON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the use of substitutes for cream by bakers and confectioners involving the breach of the Milk and Dairies Act; and what steps are being taken to circumvent this?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a well-known fact that substitutes for cream are commonly used by bakers and confectioners, but so long as these substitutes are not injurious to health and the articles in which they are used are not incorrectly described, there is no offence in regard to which statutory proceedings could be taken. It is not a matter to which the Milk and Dairies Acts apply.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the British public are adequately protected from various foreign substitutes which come in to displace the much purer British cream?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question I have to consider is whether the substitutes are injurious to health or whether, alternatively, the articles are correctly described. So long as they do not transgress either of those conditions, we cannot take statutory action.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the result of the prohibition of preservatives in cream, confectioners are almost entirely using synthetic cream?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not aware of that fact.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is a fact.

Mr. MARCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all substitutes used by confectioners are not of foreign manufacture?

VENEREAL DISEASES (TREATMENT).

Miss LAWRENCE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of grant given towards the treatment of venereal disease in the years 1921 and 1927, and the amount which local authorities have been informed is the maximum they will receive for the year 1927–28; whether he will give the number of treatment centres for venereal disease in England in 1921 and at the present time; and the number of health authorities where no such centres are provide?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The grants paid to local authorities for this purpose amounted to £421,687 and £272,921 during the financial years 1921–22 and 1927–28, respectively. The maximum grant payable to these authorities in respect of the financial year 1927–28 is £286,763. There are at the present time 177 treatment centres in England, compared with 184 in 1921, the reduction being due mainly to the policy adopted in some large towns of concentrating the work of two or more centres in one centre at which extended facilities for treatment have been provided. Facilities for the treatment of venereal disease have been provided by all the local authorities responsible for this work, but in a few cases the treatment centres are outside the administrative areas of the authorities.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that
the actual expenditure has been reduced by 50 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not by 50 per cent., but by £150,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS (LONDON, MIDDLESEX, ESSEX AND SURREY).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the rents charged, exclusive of rates, for houses built with State assistance, under the Housing Act, which contain three rooms or more, and are controlled by either the London County Council, the Middlesex Council, the Essex County Council, or the Surrey County Council?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rents (exclusive of rates) charged by the London County Council for houses containing three rooms or more vary from 8s. 6d. to 21s. 3d. a week according to the accommodation provided and the situation of the houses. County councils other than the London County Council do not provide houses except for persons in their own employment. The rents charged for such houses by the three councils named are as follow:

Per week.




s.
d.


Middlesex County Council
…
10
6


Essex County Council
…
5
6


Surrey County Council
…
4
8

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what accommodation there is in a house rented at 21s. 3d.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

HALESOWEN.

Mr. WELLOCK: 27.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases with more than one family to a house in the urban district of Halesowen, and the number for the same area in 1923?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the figures asked for by the hon. Member are not available.

CONTRACT PRICES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if he will cite examples of the highest and lowest prices now being paid for non-parlour type houses by local
authorities under the Acts of 1923 and 1924; and if he can give reasons for the differences?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The prices of non-parlour houses included in contracts let by local authorities during the month of March last ranged from £263 to £459; in the most extreme cases, although the bulk of the houses in question came within a comparatively narrow range of prices grouped round the average of £365. The differences in prices may be due to several factors, chief of which are variations in size of houses, and in building costs in different areas; nature of site; and standard of construction and amenity. Prices are also influenced by the extent of the demand on the building industry in any area.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the amount paid in rates in England and Wales in the latest rating year by each of the following properties: houses and shops, agricultural land, gas undertakings, water undertakings, electricity undertakings, tramway undertakings, cemetery undertakings, sewerage undertakings, railway undertakings, docks and harbours, mines and minerals, iron and steel, blast furnaces, mills and manufactories, and other properties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements have been made for the publication of a series of statements which will include, for each rating area in England and Wales, with totals for the country as a whole, the information asked for by the hon. Member. The first of these statements will be available in the Vote Office to-day.

Commander BELLAIRS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether any inquiry has been made as to the gain in rateable value in streets when flexible traffic is substituted for tramways or in comparable streets with the two systems?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think that an inquiry of this kind would be practicable.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposals regarding relief from rates in re-
spect of agricultural land will apply to allotments and allotment gardens?

Major OWEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed exemption from local rates on agricultural land is applicable to allotments and market gardens?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. The proposals regarding relief from rates in respect of agricultural land will apply to all agricultural land within the meaning of the Agricultural Rates Acts, and will, therefore, include allotments, allotment gardens, and market gardens.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. FENBY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has established officers in his own Department capable of performing the duties now being discharged by officers on loan from other Government Departments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative, but I must make it clear that the abnormal, though temporary, volume of work under the Contributory Pensions Act during 1927–28 necessitated adding to the numbers of the Executive grade by obtaining the services of experienced officers of this grade on loan from other Departments for a limited period. As this work is now approaching normality, some of these officers have already returned, and others will shortly be released.

Mr. FENBY: 33.
asked the Minister of Health how many new entrant permanent officers he has employed in the Department since the decision of the Government was announced last year to restrict the employment of new entrants to the Civil Service?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of new entrants to the Civil Service who have been engaged on a permanent basis in my Department since 11th April, 1927, is 187.

Mr. FENBY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the large number of new-entrant permanent writing assistants engaged by his Department during 1927, he proposes to carry out
the specific clause of the pledge, dated 1st January, 1926, which states that if the engagement of new-entrant writing assistants causes redundancy among the women temporary staff recourse shall be had by dismissing the least efficient of the temporary staff; and why he has issued notices only to ex-service temporary clerks?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major Owen) on 22nd March last.

STAFFS.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 53
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) the total number of staff in Departments of His Majesty's Government, other than those specified in the White Paper, dated 24th April, 1928, giving the particulars on 1st April, 1914, 1st April, 1925, 1st April, 1927, and 1st January, 1928;
(2) the number of the staff employed by Departments in the following Estimate classes on 1st April, 1914: Central Government and Finance; Imperial and Foreign; Home Office Legal Departments, etc.; Education, Museums, etc.; Health, Labour, Insurance, and Pensions; Trade and Industry; and Common Services, respectively;
(3) if he will explain in detail the note on page 4 of the White Paper dated 24th April, 1928, stating that the increase of 300 in Group III is accounted for by the addition of staffs not included in the staff returns for earlier years; will he explain, in view of the above note, the decrease of 38, 1st April, 1925, to 1st April, 1926, followed the next year by an increase of 131; and the increase of 211 in the nine months 1st April, 1927, to 1st January, 1928?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): As the replies to these questions contain a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

(53) The figures in the White Paper covered the non-industrial staffs of Civil Departments. The total non-industrial
staffs of the Post Office, Revenue Departments and Defence Departments on the dates in question are as follow:


1st August, 1914
…
…
…
225,286


1st April, 1925
…
…
…
229,692


1st April, 1927
…
…
…
234,805


1st January, 1928
…
…
…
236,462

Figures for 1st April, 1914, are not available. The figures for 1st August, 1914, exclude Irish staffs numbering, approximately, 19,000.

(54) Figures for 1st April, 1914, are not available. The staff of Government Departments on 1st August, 1914, grouped according to the classification referred to below, was as follows:


Central Government and Finance
1,325


Imperial and Foreign
937


Home Office, Legal Departments, etc
7,199


Education, Museums, etc
3,173


Health, Labour, Insurance and Pensions
9,757


Trade and Industry
5,406


Common Services
1,719

The above figures are exclusive of certain staffs paid in 1914 on a fee basis or from lump sum provisions, which are now directly employed and were included in the figures shown in the White Paper recently presented to Parliament.

(55) During the period 1st April, 1925, to 1st January, 1928, the staffs employed in County Courts, which are included in the return of staffs in Group III, increased by 124, owing mainly to the gradual substitution of staff in direct employment for the former system of officers paid by fees or remunerated from lump sum provision.

In addition to the above figure, staffs numbering 197, which had been omitted altogether from the returns for earlier years, were included in the return for 1st January, 1928.

If an adjustment is made to allow for the above additions of 321, the real increases or decreases in Group III are as follow:—

1st April, 1926, as compared with 1st April, 1925: Decrease of 106.
1st April, 1927, as compared with 1st April, 1926: Increase of 106.
1st January, 1928, as compared with 1st April, 1927: Decrease of 21.
1st January, 1928, as compared with 1st April, 1925: Decrease of 21.

Ex-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. WHITELEY (for Mr. ROBINSON): 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of ex-service men engaged as temporary clerks in the Civil Service and the respective numbers in each Department?

Mr. SAMUEL: The total number of ex-service men, employed as temporary clerks in Government Departments on let April last, was approximately 5,400. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the particulars as to the numbers in each Department in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:


Foreign Office (including Passport Office)
49


Imperial War Graves Commission
140


Land Registry
28


Supreme Court
48


Ministry of Health
511


Ministry of Labour
1,795


Welsh Board of Health
60


Scottish Board of Health
66


Board of Trade
230


Office of Works
75


Ministry of Pensions
172


Customs and Excise
31


Inland Revenue
1,302


Post Office
110


Admiralty
298


Air Ministry
59


War Office
203


Other Departments
218


Total
5,395

NOTE.—The above figures do not cover Unit and Command Officers of the Air Ministry, or certain outlying branches of the War Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CHILD'S DEATH, CHESTER-LE-STREET.

Mr. LAWSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed his investigations in respect to the child, Mary Race, who died in the isolation hospital, Chester-le-Street, on 24th March, in view of the doctor's report that the child was emaciated and debilitated, and had not the resisting strength of a child of its years when it entered the hospital; and whether his investigations have established any connection between
the condition of this child and the fact that only £1 a week was granted to the six members of the Race family by the appointed guardians of Chester-le-Street?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My present information does not support the suggestion made in the last part of the question, but my enquiries are not yet complete.

Mr. LAWSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer? It is a fortnight since I called attention to the matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is so, and I am trying to get complete information, and, as soon as I get it, I shall be able to answer the hon. Member's question.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman an independent investigator there, apart from the appointed guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am trying to get information through my own officers.

Mr. LAWSON: Does that mean through a member of his own Department or through the appointed guardians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I mean the officers of my own Department and not the appointed guardians.

Mr. HANNON: Could not this matter be dealt with between the hon. Member and the Minister, without wasting the time of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) aware that there is involved in this question, on the statement of a doctor, a charge of starving a child by the appointed guardians?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that there is need for an inquiry into this case? Does anybody consider that it is possible for six people to be kept on £1 a week and the rent to be paid out of it? Is there need for an inquiry?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has already stated that he is making an inquiry.

VAGRANTS, NORTH YORKSHIRE.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 38.
asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made with regard to the accommodation for casuals travelling east and west in North Yorkshire, in view of the decision to close the casual ward at Reeth, Swaledale, Yorkshire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the closure of the casual ward at Reeth, the Sedbergh Casual Ward, which had previously been closed, has been opened.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are special circumstances in connection with this casual ward, and that the closing of it will involve great hardship to the unemployed who are travelling east and west, seeing that it is in a district which enjoys three months summer and nine months of bad weather?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not personally aware of the geographical conditions, but I am advised that the opening of the ward I hare mentioned will obviate any hardship.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. BATEY: 46.
asked the Minister of Health the amount paid by boards of guardians for unemployed workmen and their dependants during, the latest available six months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of the relief in money or kind given by boards of guardians in England and Wales to ordinarily employed persons who were unemployed and holding the appropriate form issued by an Employment Exchange, and the dependants of those persons, during the six months ended 25th February, 1928, was £2,757,972.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister, in view of that large amount communicated with the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

INCOME TAX.

Sir JOHN POWER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the extension of Income Tax relief proposed in the
Budget on account of children will be applicable in respect of all children who survive their birth, however short the period?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

Mr. LOUGHER: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that inquiries are being made of banks by His Majesty's inspectors of taxes as to the amount of customers' stock sold, the date of sale, and particulars of how the capital is re-invested; whether such inquisition is being made by his authority or by the authority of his Department; and if he has any statement to make upon the matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will give me particulars of any case of the kind which he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate the result to him in due course.

Mr. LOUGHER: I shall be pleased to supply to the hon. Gentleman particulars of the case which has been reported to me.

TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. GILLETT: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Treasury Bills issued for each of the two years 1926–27 and 1927–28, and the amount of money allowed in discount in these bills for the same periods?

Mr. SAMUEL: The amount of Treasury Bills issued in the financial year 1926 was £2,540 millions and in 1927, £2,417 millions. The discount in 1926 was £28,020.000 and in 1927, £25,281,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. W. J. Whittle, of 87, Adelaide Street, Hull, is entitled to payment of five old age pension orders which his father was unable to cash before his death, and that Mr. Whittle applied for payment of these five orders to the Customs and Excise Department as soon as he was aware that he was entitled to payment of them, but payment has been refused on the grounds of the application having been, sent in too late; and whether he will reconsider
his decision and make the payment to Mr. Whittle?

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the express provision in the law that "a sum shall not be paid on account of an old age pension if payment is not obtained within three months after the date on which it has become payable," I regret that payment cannot be made. I would explain that the period of three months is mentioned on the face of every pension order, and Mr. Whittle's application was not made until about five months after the date on which the orders became due for payment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman not in a position to make any payment as an act of grace in a case of this kind, where a working man has been put to great expense through the illness and death of his father and has then discovered that his father owing to illness has not drawn his old age pension papers?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, there is an express provision in the law dealing with this matter, and I cannot break the law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is it not possible, without breaking the law, to make an ex gratia payment?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of any way in which it can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWYN TREWAN FORESHORE (ANGLESEY).

Sir R. THOMAS: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Crown Lands have recently refused to assent to the removal of beach material from the Towyn Trewan foreshore, Anglesey; that this decision is calculated to aggravate unemployment and to cause loss to the people of the district, who have no other place from which to cart gravel; and that, in the opinion of the oldest inhabitants, no erosion occurs or is likely to occur along this stretch; and whether he will accordingly look into this matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The foreshore in question is leased to the owner of adjoining land, who covenants by his lease not to remove or permit to be removed any materials from the foreshore. I under-
stand that in accordance with this condition the lessee has recently prohibited the removal of gravel by a local builder. For several years prior to the grant of the lease representations, supported by conclusive evidence, were made to the Commissioners that the removal of gravel and sand from this foreshore was causing rapid and serious erosion. The Commissioners have recently again consulted His Majesty's coastguard, who reported on 31st March last that no material, even to a limited extent, could be removed from the foreshore without injury to the adjoining land. I regret, therefore, that I can hold out no hope of the prohibition being withdrawn.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this common is under the management of a board of conservators, elected by the parishes adjoining the common; and did the right hon. Gentleman or his assistants consult this board before taking the action which they have taken?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not sure if we consulted the board to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have done our best to get expert advice. I will go into the matter again and see if we have got the full information.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is a very serious matter having regard to the fact that building operations in that particular area are being held up owing to the fact that gravel cannot be obtained anywhere else, and that gravel has been obtained from this spot from time immemorial?

Mr. GUINNESS: It may be owing to that fact that coast erosion has become so serious there.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is far more important to avoid the erosion of the inhabitants of the district?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS BILL.

Viscount SANDON: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Agricultural Credits Bill will be introduced; and if Parliamentary time will be found to pass it through all its stages this Session?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have given notice to introduce the Agricultural Credits Bill this afternoon and I have every hope that it will be possible to pass it through all its stages this Session.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will that Bill be preceded by a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, it is not a Bill mainly for public expenditure. I think the Resolution can be taken after the Bill.

Viscount SANDON: Is "hope" the utmost that the right hon. Gentleman can say?

PEDIGREE LIVESTOCK (EXPORTS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that British pedigree livestock can now be exported certified free from disease after a period under observation in a quarantine station, the Dominion Governments have agreed to relax the severity of their import restrictions upon live animals from this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply I gave on the 26th April to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), a copy of which I am sending to him.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there is a ready market for home-grown wheat at current prices, in view of the fact that the millers are glad to mix it with Canadian and Indian or Australian wheat to get the right mixture; and if he knows of any recent cases of British farmers being unable to sell their wheat at the market prices ruling?

Mr. GUINNESS: Home-grown wheat normally finds a market for mixing with strong imported wheats, and for this purpose it is in direct, competition with other descriptions of imported wheat such as Argentine, of which there have been unusually large importations this year. The condition of much of the home crop has been poor this season owing to the unfavourable harvest weather, and it is possible that, in spite of the improved market during recent weeks for English as well as imported wheat, some of the former may even now be unsaleable for
milling purposes, but the sales of British wheat as returned under the Corn Returns Act have been fully up to the average.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, is there any reason why there should be an artificial restriction on millers, forcing them to take British wheat?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down another question.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. RILEY: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state if and when he intends to introduce legislation dealing with the recommendations of the recent Report of the Commission on Land Drainage?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely on the 13th February last. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage are continuing to receive the active consideration of my Department; but it is already evident that a very considerable amount of survey work will be necessary in order to fix the boundaries of the various Catchment Areas, which from the point of view of urgency, will have to be included in any Bill that may be introduced to give effect to these recommendations.

Mr. RILEY: Is it not a fact that the Commission has reported that this question is a matter of urgency, especially to those whose land is in danger of being injured through the lack of proper drainage?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that is the case, but we are getting on with the preparations for the Bill as fast as possible.

Miss LAWRENCE: Has the Minister taken into consideration the suitability of this work for providing schemes of work for the unemployed?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that has been taken into consideration.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to solve permanently this drainage problem, until the land becomes the property of the nation?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think the two problems of nationalisation and land drainage are connected as the hon. Member seems to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOODLANDS (SURVEY).

Mr. DAY: 62.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, when the survey of the woodlands of Great Britain will be published: and is there any reason for the delay of this publication?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The Report on the survey of the 'woodlands of Great Britain will be published as soon as it is printed, probably during this month. There will be no delay.

Mr. DAY: Will the cost of publication he reasonable, so that the public can obtain it?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: I think the cost in all these cases is reasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTMINSTER HALL (SCREENS).

Mr. E. BROWN: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when it is intended to remove the unsightly ladders and screens from Westminster Hall?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The screens in question were used for the completion of the paintings in St. Stephen's Hall. They are now no longer required and will be removed within the next few days.

Mr. BROWN: Why is it, that although this work was completed nearly three months ago, the screens are still there; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that visitors to Westminster Hall are constantly inquiring what secrets the Government have hidden behind those screens?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member is not accurate in his information. It was found necessary to make further alterations to one of the pictures as late as the Easter holidays, and it is only
within the last two or three days that I have been assured that no further alterations will be required.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENT, CRONTON COLLIERIES, PRESCOT.

Mr. TINKER: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to a shot-firing accident at Cronton Collieries, Prescot, Lancashire, on the 16th March, causing the death of a workman, although the regulations were carried out and it was assumed he was clear of danger; and what steps his Department are taking to prevent similar accidents?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I am aware of the accident referred to. This unfortunate man and his companions had taken what appeared to be adequate shelter round a corner, but he was struck by a piece of coal, projected by a shot, which must have ricochetted. The inspectors are constantly emphasising the need for taking adequate shelter when shots are to be fired, but—without suggesting that there was any error of judgment in this case—it is impossible for them to prevent

NUMBER OF COAL MINES at work and the Number of Persons employed in December in the Counties of Fife and Clackmannan in 1913, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Year.
County.


Fife.
Clackmannan.


Number of Mines at work.
Number of Persons employed.
Number of Mines at work.
Number of Persons employed.


1913
…
…
…
57
29,322
5
1,264


1924
…
…
…
64
30,089
6
1,520


1925
…
…
…
55
27,391
6
1,379


1926
…
…
…
58
17,512
6
1,361


1927
…
…
…
56
22,546
6
1,234

Mr. WATSON: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number and names of the collieries that have ceased working in the counties of Fife and Clackmannan since the beginning of the present year and until the latest available date; the number of persons rendered idle in each colliery, stated separately; and the num-

occasional errors of judgment in the matter.

Mr. TINKER: Are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department does not intend to take any further precautions against this kind of thing?

Commodore KING: I do not see how my Department, or any other authority, could possibly take precautions to prevent an accident such as this one.

Mr. TINKER: I shall take the opportunity of the presentation of the Estimates for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department to raise this question again.

FIFE AND CLACKMANNAN.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries operating in the counties of Fife and Clackmannan for the years 1913, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927, with the numbers employed each year for each county separately?

Commodore KING: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

ber in each county that have been suspended temporarily, and the number stated to be permanently abandoned?

Commodore KING: Eleven pits in the county of Fife, employing 1,659 wage-earners, and one pit in the county of Clackmannan, employing 217 wage-earners, have ceased work since the 1st
January. No pit has been notified as permanently abandoned. I will send the hon. Member a list of the closed pits, showing the numbers normally employed at each.

Mr. SHINWELL: When the hon. and gallant Member states that no notification has been received of pits being permanently abandoned, is it not accurate to say that no notification is required to be made until some considerable time has elapsed?

Commodore KING: I think it is within two or three months. No immediate notification is necessary.

MINERS' PHTHISIS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has definitely arranged for the extension of the schedule of industrial diseases so as to include men who contract miners' phthisis while following the occupation of rock-boring in coal mines by the used of compressed-air machines; and whether he will inform the House how many cases of disability from this cause have been notified to his Department in the last four years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The matter is one which will have to be dealt with by a scheme under Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and I have asked the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation for Silicosis to advise as to the terms of a scheme. I have offered for this purpose to appoint to the Committee two representatives of the industry on each side, but have not yet received the reply of the Miners' Federation. The disease is not notifiable and no statistics are available, but its incidence, to a limited extent, in the coal mining industry has been established.

MIDLAND MARKETING SCHEME (PRICES).

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. W. THORNE): 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Cannock Chase coalowners have decided on an increase in the price of coal of from 1s. to 2s. per ton as and from 30th April; and the amount of increases in the price of coal in other parts of the country where the marketing scheme has been put into operation?

Commodore KING: I have seen references in the Press to an increase in the price of Cannock Chase coal as from 1st
May. The information in my possession regarding prices generally is derived from market quotations in the technical Press, which indicate that in the area covered by the Midland marketing scheme inland prices have been advanced at various dates in April for some qualities of coals by amounts varying from 6d. to 2s. per ton.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN PRICES.

Mr. KELLY: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any approach has been made to his Department to assist in proposals to set up a producers' association for the purpose of stabilising the price of tin?

Commodore KING: No, Sir.

Mr. KELLY: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average price for black tin in 1920 and 1927, and the average price for metallic tin in 1920 and 1927?

Commodore KING: The average value at mines and quarries in 1920 of black tin containing on the average 66 per cent. of metal was £171 14s. per ton, and in 1927 of black tin containing on the average 63 per cent. of metal £151 9s. 9d. per ton. The average prices of metallic tin for the same years were 2296 1s. 7d. and £288 19s. 3d., respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOUNT PLEASANT POST OFFICE

Mr. GILLETT: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General when the work of completing the Mount Pleasant Post Office will be commenced?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The details preliminary to the actual planning of the building are now under consideration, and it is anticipated that the demolition work necessary to enable building operations to commence will be carried out during the next financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (BUDGET).

Mr. MALONE: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government have put forward any proposals for the reduction of the annual budget of
the International Labour Office at Geneva?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The budget of the International Labour Office for 1929 proposed a net increase of 716,410 Swiss francs over that voted for 1928; this figure, it is true, containing provision in respect of the second conference which is to be held in 1929. Reductions in respect of this considerable increase were proposed by several Governments, including the British. The majority of these reductions were adopted by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the Governing Body.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is Great Britain's contribution towards this budget?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes. Speaking from memory, the contribution of Great Britain is about 10.5 per cent., and the contribution of the British Empire as a Whole, again speaking from memory, is about 26.5 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. E. J. DALLEY).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. E. J. Dalley, 9, Albert Street, East London, South Africa, who received injuries and loss of personal effects when the hospital ship "Asturias" was torpedoed on the 20th March, 1917; that his claim for £500 for injuries and loss was submitted to the Board of Trade in February, 1924, by Dalley from South Africa, where he had been sent by his doctor for health reasons as a result of the injuries referred to; that Dailey was informed that his claim was rejected by the Reparations Claims Department because he was classed as a South African national, having resided there since 1920, and the man was advised to submit his claim to the South African Government; and that the South African Government state that they are unable to consider the claim, as under their Regulations the man was ineligible because be had not resided in South Africa before the War; and, having regard to the fact that the injury and loss have been established, will he say
from what particular State Department the man can obtain monetary redress?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have made inquiries and the facts stated in the question would appear to be substantially correct. I regret that it is not possible for an award to be made to Mr. Dailey in respect of his claim to reparation because at the time of presenting himself as a claimant he was domiciled in South Africa, where he had been residing since 1920, and where he stated he intended to remain. In the year 1917 the claimant received certain payments in respect of his loss of effects and incapacity caused by war perils. If his health is still impaired as the result of war perils, it is possible that further compensation might be payable to him under the War Risks Compensation Scheme administered by the Board of Trade; but in order to establish a claim to such further compensation, it would be necessary for him to produce adequate medical evidence to prove that his present disability is attributable to a specific war peril.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS, HARRIS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he still refuses to consider applicants for holdings when the landlord, with the consent of the Government, has obtained a conviction against them for breach of interdict; and on what authority, under the Small Landholders Acts, his refusal is based?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am still of opinion that persons who have been guilty of taking illegal possession of land must be excluded from consideration. The exclusion of raiders is not merely a question of interpretation of statutory powers and rights but of policy in relation to satisfactory administration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of married ex-service applicants in Harris awaiting settlement on holdings; how long they have been waiting; and how many of them are to be settled on the farm of Scarristaveg?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am making inquiry on the first two parts of the question; and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put it down again next week.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether an understanding has been arrived at between Roderick MacLeay, the proprietor of the estate of Scarristaveg, in the island of Harris, and the Board of Agriculture for the settlement of the farm of Scarristaveg into small holdings; ii so, how many new holdings have been constituted; and what compensation the landlord has demanded and will receive for converting the farm into holdings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The scheme provides for three new holdings and the enlargement of 29 existing holdings. The amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the landlord on his carrying out the scheme is £725.

VOTING FACILITIES, DALWHINNIE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that half the electors at Dalwhinnie have to take train journeys involving five hours' absence from home, while the other half are compelled to go to Laggan by a 12-mile road across the moors to exercise the franchise; and whether he proposes to extend the system of postal voting or to appoint travelling polling officers in order to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. I am informed by the Sheriff who is responsible for fixing the polling places in question that there are very few electors in the Dalwhinnie district and that he has received no complaint from them regarding the polling facilities provided. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has some knowledge of Scotland, think that it is hard lines that voters, who are citizens of this Empire, should not have the same facilities for registering their vote as individuals have in big industrial centres; why should we as Members of Parliament enjoy the privilege of being paid to come her; and facilities given to us—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is clearly making a speech.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why should not the ordinary citizens of Scotland have facilities, as far as it is possible, for them to register their votes.? Fancy the idea of having—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech again.

Mr. HARDIE: Has any consideration even been given to the desirability of having the system extended, whereby you could have peripatetic polling booths?

Mr. E. BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that in a scattered area, wherever there is a public elementary school, there should be a polling station?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War the strength of the British Army of Occupation in Germany; and whether its withdrawal is contemplated?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The strength of the British Army of the Rhine, excluding the small detachment in the Saar district, on 1st April last was approximately 5,850. As regards the answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Noel Buxton) on 9th February last.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Army of Occupation has been in Germany for 10 years, and, with his knowledge of modern history, can he point to a single case where a conquering army has remained so long in a conquered country; and, if not, will he do his best to get this Army removed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That will involve an excursion into Roman history.

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS DEPOT, FELTHAM (CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. KELLY: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilian
employés in the service of the War Department at Feltham in March, 1924, 1926 and 1928, respectively?

Mr. COOPER: The numbers of civilian employés borne on the pay roll of the Royal Army Service Corps Depot at Feltham in March, 1924, 1926 and 1928 were approximately 550, 525 and 420, respectively.

Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that part of the work that was formally done by civilians is now done by men in the Forces?

Mr. COOPER: To some extent, that is the case.

MEAT SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the campaign to buy British goods supported by the Government, he is prepared to reconsider his recent decision and undertake that, for the future, a certain proportion of English meat shall be included in the purchases made by his Department for issue as rations to the troops?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. The issue of English meat to the troops is unfortunately precluded by the heavy extra expense involved.

Mr. ALBERY: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the extra expense involved, will he be prepared to consider the issue of English meat, if it can be obtained at the same expense?

Mr. COOPER: Certainly, if it can be obtained at the same price.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it a fact that only the purveyors of imported meat can tender, and that the purveyors of English meat cannot tender?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that that is the case. If they could tender at prices lower than imported meat, they would be able to tender.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the form of tender there is no provision for English meat at all, and that it is all foreign meat?

Mr. ALBERY: In one of his answers the hon. Gentleman said that if the English tenders were lower—

Mr. COOPER: I should have said as low.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (BOOKS).

Mr. WELLOCK: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give an assurance that a bookseller who, on applying to the India Office or the High Commissioners, is told that so far as their knowledge goes certain books are not proscribed, will not be subjected to any penalties if he sends copies of such books to India?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Treasurer of the Household): Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. MALONE: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the situation in Egypt?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have nothing to add to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend in response to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARDS (POLICE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 86.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty by whom the dockyards are policed; and what is the cost of the work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The dockyards at home are policed by the Metropolitan Police, except at Rosyth and Pembroke, where Royal Marine Police are employed. The estimated cost of police employed in the home dockyards during the current financial year is £140,4[...]0, exclusive of the accruing liability foe pensions or gratuities on discharge. The dockyards abroad are policed by separate forces constituted for each yard, for which the estimated cost for the present financial year is £42,000, exclusive of pensions or gratuities on discharge.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Does my hon. Friend think that using the Metropolitan Police is the most economical way of carrying on this service?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think that it is extremely open to doubt, and we are looking into the matter very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (INSPECTION).

Mr. SEXTON (for Mr. B. SMITH): 2.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can furnish the proportion of days devoted by inspectors of factories during 1927 to effective inspection of work places and to office work, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Rather more than 65 per cent. of the time of the district staffs was spent in inspection, and rather less than 29 per cent. in office work. The remaining 6 per cent. was taken up with special inquiries, attendance at inquests and prosecutions, and other active work outside the office.

Mr. SEXTON (for Mr. B. SMITH): 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can furnish the number of docks, wharves, quays, warehouses, and buildings in course of erection on the registers of the Home Office on the 31st December, 1927, and the proportion of these not visited by any inspector, under the Factory and Workshop Acts, during that year; and the number of such places not visited for two years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his previous question of the 29th March last, in which I furnished him with the figures so far as available of works not visited during 1927. As regards the latter part of the question, the number of docks, wharves and quays not visited since 1925 was 592, and the number of warehouses 2,525. For the reasons indicated in my previous reply, I am not able to give the corresponding figure for buildings but I am advised by the Chief Inspector that the number of buildings coming under the Regulations which had not been visited during the two previous years was very small.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of the docks, the dock regulations are not posted up, and will he make inquiries to see if the regulations are suitably carried out?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is only one inspector for the whole of Hull and Goole, and that it is impossible for him to do his work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me information, into which I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARMER'S DEATH, COLEFORD (POLICE INVESTIGATIONS).

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. W. THORNE): 9.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of expenses incurred by Scotland Yard officers during the past 13 weeks in consequence of the intervention of that Department in the Harry Pace case, which is now being investigated at Coleford, Forest of Dean; and if he has any information as to when the case will be finally settled?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The assistance of the Metropolitan Police was sought by the Chief Constable. It would be inconvenient to require accounts of expenses to be made up and rendered during the investigation. It is impossible for anyone, even the coroner, to say how many more sitting will be necessary before the inquest can be concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTED PRISONERS (PRESS REPORTS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether he sanctioned the publication in the Press of confidential official information regarding the careers of the two convicted prisoners, Browne and Kennedy: and, if not, whether he will take steps to prohibit the issue of such information in future?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have sanctioned nothing of the kind. Such information as has appeared in the Press is in no sense confidential, and I have no authority either to sanction or prohibit its publication.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the interest of public morals that publications such as this should be prohibited? Why should we publish what has happened to men when we are about
to take their lives? They are to pay the full penalty, and why should we go back into their history in this way?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no authority in the matter at all. It would need an Act of Parliament to prevent a publication of that kind.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek the necessary powers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not at all sure that I should.

Mr. GARDNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the statement in yesterday's papers about one of the men attempting suicide was not authorised by his Department?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will tell us what business it is proposed to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, Report and Third Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill; adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Rabbits Bill; Committee stage of the Naval Prize (Transfer of Fund) Money Resolution.
Tuesday: Supply Committee (6th Allotted Day).
Wednesday: Supply, Committee (7th Allotted Day).
Thursday: Second Reading of the Agricultural Credits Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
The Business for Friday will be announced later; and, if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken. The Agricultural Credits Bill will, I hope, be circulated to hon. Members on Saturday morning.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the Naval Prize Bill is being taken as the third Order on Monday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the ordinary time for Debate will be taken up with the Franchise Bill, and, in view of the large amount of money and of the naval interests involved, does he not think that this other Measure ought to be taken at a more reasonable hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is the Money Resolution which is being taken. It is quite obvious that, if there is not time for it, it will not be taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How can it possibly be taken at so late an hour after the other two Orders have been disposed of?

The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is a debatable point. I say that, if there is not time, it will not be taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then on what day will it be taken?

Ordered,
That the Proceedings upon the Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means of 24th April last and 26th April last and upon the Consolidated Fund [National Debt] have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Right hon. Sir James Rennell Rodd, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., for Borough of St Marylebone.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL,

"to secure, by means of the formation of a company and the assistance thereof out of public funds, the making of loans for agricultural purposes on favourable terms, and to facilitate the borrowing of money on the security of farming stock and other agricultural assets, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Guinness; supported by Attorney-General and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS BILL,

"to provide for Courts of domestic relations to deal with matrimonial cases of the poor," presented by Mr. Snell; supported by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Walter Baker, Mr. Gillett, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 11th May, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORTHING EXTENSION) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Essex Waterworks Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; to extend the limits of supply of the company; and for other purposes." [South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords].

SELECTION (DOVER GAS BILL [Lords]) JOINT COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Five Members to serve on the joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Dover Gas Bill [Lords]: Mr. Hugh Edwards, Mr. Maitland, Captain Cunningham Reid, Mr. Wallhead, and Sir Francis Watson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

DOVER GAS BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [26th April] as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Committee on the Dover Gas Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Guinness; and had appointed in substitution; The Solicitor-General.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Racecourse Betting Bill): Sir Leonard Brassey and Lord Stanley; and had appointed in substitution: Rear-Admiral Beamish and Captain Crookshank.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SOUTH ESSEX WATERWORKS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

[REPORT, 24th April.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [2nd May] to the Ninth Resolution.

BUTTONS.

9. "That during a period of five years beginning on the twenty-eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, there shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of buttons made of any material, and whether finished or unfinished, of a description commonly used for the fastening or decorating of wearing apparel or household linen, not being buttons forming part of any other article, a duty of Customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value thereof."

Which Amendment was: In line 1, to leave out the words "five years" and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We were interrupted last night in the Debate on this important matter of buttons, but before we take a vote on this Amendment—I assume that the discussion will be quite short—I want to refer to one or two of the aspects of this case, and particularly to the speech made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). In the course of the hon. Member's defence of the Government—and it needed defence yesterday very badly—he made certain statements in which he drew attention to the procedure of the Committee upon whose recommendation the Government have proposed this duty. He complained bitterly that whereas the manufacturers had been put to great expense and trouble those who had suffered most had the audacity to employ counsel. This is how the hon. Member for Moseley described those members of the legal profession who were quite legitimately putting the case as lawyers on behalf of the interests concerned:
You have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them.
I think it is quite gratuitous for the hon. Member for Moseley to malign the
learned counsel who were engaged before the Committee. I do not think it, is right for an hon. Member of this House to take advantage of his Parliamentary privileges to abuse and insult lawyers who are only doing the best they can for their clients who happen to be important people, and who have a right to some consideration. Buttons are largely used in the tailoring trade, more especially in the case of ready-made clothing in which the world competition is very keen. Consequently if you put up the price of buttons you hamper a trade in which thousands of people are employed. I believe there are 30,000 people employed in the clothing trade in Leeds alone, and the total number of people employed in the button trade in the country is a little over 3,000. In the East End of London and in my own constituency there are a number of important ready-made clothing factories employing a large number of workpeople and they do an immense export trade. In Leeds, Hull, London and probably Glasgow there are more people employed in the ready-made clothing trade than in the whole of the button industry. Another important trade is the re-export trade which is of peculiar importance to this country. The Committee which dealt with this reported, on page 15 of their report, as follows:
It may be admitted that the duties on imported buttons would affect to some extent all makers of clothing, but the expenditure on these articles is necessarily such a small item in the cost of any individual garment that we do not think a duty would have any adverse effect upon unemployment in the clothing trade.
It has been suggested to us that there is a large re-export trade which now has its home in this country, and that the facilities for re-export would be greatly decreased if a duty was imposed. While recognising the importance of this re-export trade, we doubt whether our conclusions ought to be influenced by this consideration, and we think that the suggested difficulties could he got over by separate orders for and separate packing of buttons.
The entrepot trade is of the greatest importance to this country, because we employ in it a tremendous number of wharfingers, storehouse workers, people connected with banking and insurance and many other persons. All these are what we call invisible exports, and these services as common carriers are of the greatest importance to this country. All these pettifogging Regulations relating
to buttons only add to the cost of the goods, and yet the Government prides itself upon never interfering with industry. When it is a matter of one million miners being underpaid, of course the Government never interfere. In this case for the sake of the constituents represented by the hon. Member for Moseley, who has not a couple of thousand of people employed in this trade in his constituency—

Mr. HANNON: The interpretation which the hon. and gallant Member has put upon the words which I used last night is without a shred of foundation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then I will read once more the actual words used by the hon. Member:
You have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them.
I say that is a scandalous reflection for a Member of Parliament to make upon the legal profession.

Mr. HANNON: I made no reflection whatever upon the learned profession of the law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to have that disclaimer from the hon. Member, and I am sure the legal profession will appreciate the hon. Member's policy at its face value. I think the Committee put their fingers on the true inwardness of the button trade when they said that where the higher grades of button are concerned, the trade is in a favourable position. Everybody knows that we have held our own, broadly speaking, in the trade of the world on account of the high quality of our goods, and it is only in the cheap low grade goods that we have been undersold. That is the history of the textile industry of this country, or at any rate that was the case until the present Government took office. It is true that other countries are competing severely with us in the market for cheap goods, but I hope we shall go on relying on the quality of our goods and not upon the sale of shoddy material. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, there has been a change in fashions.
4.0 p.m.
Men still wear buttons, unless they are taxed. I notice that the latest thing is zip-fasteners, which do away with braces
and all kinds of things, and have taken the place of buttons. You might just as well demand an import duty on hairpins, because women have given up using them, or on horses because the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) drives about London in a motor car instead of a cab, or you might just as well put an import duty on harness. If the hon. Member really wants to impose a tax on buttons, why does he not engage in a propaganda for wearing more buttons? Why does he not popularise the costermonger's gala costume? Let the hon. Member set an example. Imagine the picture in the illustrated papers of "Patrick Hannon, Esquire, M.P., The Pearly King." I am sure that the fashion would take on immediately, and that it would bring more employment to the distressed button-makers even than this unnecessary and, indeed, useless tax. The better-class buttons do not need a tariff, and the cheaper ones from Japan will not be kept out by the tariff, but the price all round will be put up. The entrepot trade will be injured, and the ready-made clothing trade will be still further hampered. For all these reasons, I hope this latest fiscal monstrosity will be turned down by Parliament.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I do not think there is a great deal in the last speech to which I need reply. The main burden of the hon. and gallant Member's argument related to the question of the influence of the alleged increase in the price of buttons on the clothing trade. I am not prepared to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's unsupported assertion that the price of buttons will, of necessity, go up, because, if we take the analogy of other industries enjoying safeguarding in general, there has been no rise in price. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are going up in price. I have made a very rough calculation, which might be open to some question, but, on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, it might add 2d. to the cost of a suit of clothes for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and in my case it might add a penny.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would that be owing to the better quality of buttons on my suit?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, the number of buttons necessary for the purpose. He also complained of the separation of packages. In the ordinary way it is not likely that packages of buttons would be split, one half going to Manchester and the other to New Zealand. On balance, it is likely that packages will be dealt with whole, and the advice to the Customs officers that they should keep packages separate is merely on the ground of convenience. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1925, he will find complete provisions with regard to re-export, and any button which leaves this country in the condition in which it is imported will be entitled to a drawback, which answers the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, and that put last night by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton).
This is not the first time that this matter has been before the House of Commons. I will read two paragraphs from the Preamble of a previous Act:
Whereas great numbers of the inhabitants of this kingdom are employed in the making of bone-lace, band-strings, buttons, needlework fringe and imbroideries, who by their industry and labour have attained and gained so great skill and dexterity in the making thereof, that they make as good of all sorts thereof, as is made in any foreign parts.
That is the first part of the Preamble. It then goes on to explain how they had suffered through foreign competition, and proceeds:
by means whereof the said trade and calling is of late very much decayed, those employed in the said calling very much impoverished, the manufacture much decreased, and great quantities thereof already made left on their hands that make it, His Majesty defrauded and deceived in his Customs, and many thousand poor people, formerly kept on work in the said art, like to perish for want of employment.
That happened in 1662. I am not in the least surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this subject have not learnt anything, even although these arguments were presented more than a quarter of a millenium ago. No argument has made any impression on them. Let us take the speech made last night by the Mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Peckham, who wanted to know whether the industry was of substantial importance, and con-
trasted it with the tombstone industry. It may be some satisfaction to him that he can have his tombstone free of duty, but who judges of the substantial nature of the industry by the size of the article made, whether it is a button or a tombstone? Is it substantial in the fact that it is an important article of commerce, and in the sense that it employs a large number of people in its manufacture? This industry in 1913 employed over 6,800 people. To-day, unfortunately, it employs only 3,600. But whichever figure you take, we have an industry here which clearly is substantial from the point of view of providing employment to some of our own fellow-countrymen. If you ask, "Is it substantial from the point of view of being an article in general demand?" I ask every hon. Member to examine his own clothes, and he will find it is so substantial and so necessary that no Member would dare enter this House unless provided with an adequate supply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has quoted wrong figures? According to the evidence given before the Committee of the Board of Trade for 1913, the number for the 11 firms for which they have returns was only 3,300.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Precisely; but I was not limiting myself to the 11 firms. There are not only it firms in the industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the figures I gave on the same page.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, I see.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then the hon. Member for Peckham attacked the efficiency of the industry. He asked what guarantee had we that the safeguarding of the industry would produce keenness and inventiveness on the part of the industry and give them brains and business acumen. I think anyone who makes a speech on this subject ought not to attack an industry without having studied the information. I will read one sentence from paragraph 8 on page 15:
The efficiency of no section of this industry was seriously challenged.
I do not think that any industry could have a more satisfactory statement made with regard to its efficiency, and the hon. Member's remarks were a reflection on the capacity of the people engaged in the industry. We all know that the trouble
does not arise from the lack of efficiency on the part of the manufacturers, but from the lower labour costs of the foreign countries of origin. Then the hon. Gentleman said that it was utterly futile and contemptible. I agree that if you have not studied the Report properly, the only way is to use a lot of noisy adjectives. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) said, what is the use of saying that this competition is due to lower wages? And he asked us to look at the United States, where wages are very much higher, and from where a large percentage of these buttons come. As a matter of fact, only about 2½ per cent. come from the United States, and that was the only material argument of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment.
We come to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who said that linen buttons have almost gone out of use. He had read the bulk of the Report, but he missed a few paragraphs, and if he will study the Report again he will find that more than 50 per cent. of the production of buttons in this country consists of linen buttons. He will find that imports have increased rapidly and are now responsible for 40 per cent. of the production. Adding the two figures together you get, as far as I can estimate, about 4,000,000 gross of linen buttons consumed in this country. And yet the hon. Member actually said that linen buttons have almost gone out of use. Four million gross is nearly 600,000,000 buttons. Somebody must be wearing a lot if there are many wearing none. He also said that the cheap pearl button is made from shell that comes from China. I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning and found that the reference to China does not appear, no doubt through inadvertence, but the hon. Member certainly referred to China. He pointed out how close Japan was to China, though, of course, it depends on the part of China. Anyhow, if he will turn to the Report, he will find that the bulk of these shells comes from Australian waters, and in the Report the Committee state that on balance the Japanese do not enjoy cheaper raw material than we do. So that every aspect of his argument seems to be dealt with. Then the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) expressed some
regret that this Committee in recommending that buttons should be taxed, did not also recommend that other things should be taxed, and wanted to know what was the position of the snap fastener. The ordinary button has a button hole, whereas the snap fastener has not. That will be, I think, an easy means of differentiating between one and the other.
The case I have to answer is such a slight case that there is no need for me to speak at any length, but let me summarise briefly the conclusions of the Committee. They came to the conclusion that the industry is a substantial one, and I have dealt with that. They point out that the products are so interchangeable and vary so much on account of periodic fashion changes, that they must be taken as a whole, and they are, in fact, a homogeneous class. They decided that imports are abnormal in relation to consumption. Whether imports are abnormal or not does not depend upon whether imports are greater now than in 1913. The test is the ratio of imports to consumption, and on that basis it is clear that they are abnormal. We have not got in the Report complete figures for 1927, but there has been a certain amount of importation anticipatory of this Resolution, and it is quite clear that importation, if anything, has increased slightly. Leaving erinoid out of account, home production has dropped more than one-half, and by that test it is quite clear that importation is abnormal.
The costings in the industry were very satisfactory. Elaborate costings have been taken, and show quite clearly that, under existing conditions, foreign buttons, particularly of the cheaper variety—what may be called the lower end of the trade—are being sold at prices below those at which they can be profitably manufactured in this country. It may be retorted, in view of that, that buttons are bound to go up in price, but, if hon. Members will refer to the Report, they will find that it points out that present conditions of competition make efficient mass production almost impossible; and that, of course, is one of the reasons why the cost of production is higher than it otherwise would be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You said just now that the industry was efficient.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Precisely. You may have 100 per cent, efficiency, but the conditions under which you are forced to work may be such that that efficiency cannot be secured. As to the question whether employment is seriously affected, that is not in doubt, and the fact that the exceptional competition was due to lower wages was also clearly established. The efficiency of the industry was unchallenged, and the Committee came to the conclusion, despite the opinions expressed this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that no adverse effect on any other industry was likely to occur. In view of the overwhelming case that was presented to this Committee—and it was not a biased Committee, because they were asked to examine two allied trades, and in one case their decision was favourable, while in the other case it was unfavourable, so that no one can allege bias against them—and in view of the overwhelming nature of their Report, I can only ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Since the Parliamentary Secretary has criticised my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on the ground that he had not read the Report, I think it is only right that I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 13 of the Report, which says:
The home manufacture is at the present time almost exclusively a mother-of-pearl industry, whereas the imported goods, which far exceed the home production in quantity, consist almost entirely of buttons made from the trochus shell and from cheap fresh-water shells obtained locally in Japan.
If, therefore, my hon. Friend was wrong, he erred in company with this unbiased and fully informed Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will read the paragraph for a few lines further, he will find that it says:
There is no reason to believe that the cost of the trochus shell (which comes from Australian waters) is materially cheaper to the Japanese, when freights both ways are taken into account, though no doubt they are in an advantageous position in respect of the fresh-water shells.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Yes, but surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not detract from the perfectly clear statement that the majority of these buttons
consist almost entirely of buttons made from this particular shell and from cheap fresh-water shells obtained locally in Japan. I admit that the hon. Gentleman's information is correct, and so is that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He mentioned China.

Mr. CRAWFURD: One or two interesting things emerge from this Debate. The first is that the hon. Member lays it down clearly that an industry which employs 3,600 people—of course, he said that, whether you took the one figure or the other, the number was a substantial one—is to be regarded as a substantial industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] Hon. Members opposite agree, and I am not going to quarrel with that, because I agree with the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to this extent, that, if you are arguing this question on a matter of principle, it does not really matter what the number of people employed is, and, if it can be argued on the White Paper that the industry is a substantial one, then, even though it be small, it is right that it should be entitled to the same protection. But in the same way hon. Members opposite must give us this credit, that we believe with equal sincerity that this process is doing harm to British industry, and that, even if the harm it does is small, it is in principle just as bad as if it were great. We on this side of the House are criticised, and by no one more than by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), for being the slaves of a shibboleth, but the hon. Gentleman has gone back about 250 years for an argument in support of his safeguarding policy, so I think that, on the question of shibboleths, those of hon. Members opposite are even more musty than ours. I want also to refer to a remark, which I regret I was not able to answer at the time, made last night by the hon. Member for Moseley. He has been at great pains this afternoon to explain that he means no reflection whatever upon the legal profession, but last night he said this:
I submit … that in no other country in the world, while an application of this kind was proceeding, would you have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1928; col. 1862, Vol. 216.]
The hon. Member says that he does not mean to reflect upon the legal profession. Is that, then, a reflection upon Members of this House. Does the hon. Member suggest that we are the opposition at the instance of paid advocates? I want to know. Does he mean that?

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I meant was that the Importers' Committee, representing those who were importing buttons into this country, who opposed the application, were using every means that they could in order to defeat the application of the duty.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Then the hon. Member's complaint is that the people who opposed this application did so because it was injuring their business, which was British business giving employment to British people? [Interruption.] The hon. Member and his friends cannot run away from that responsibility. If the figures which have been introduced in this House from time to time with regard to other safeguarded industries show anything, they show that the policy pursued by the Government has very gravely injured the importing and re-exporting business in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members will refer to the figures quoted in the Debate a few weeks ago, they will see that in the case of only one safeguarded article were the exports last year greater than they were in 1924; in every other case they were less. I was speaking, however, for the moment, not about exports, but about the re-export trade, and in some cases that has been absolutely killed. Hon. Members opposite cannot run away from that responsibility.
It is now suggested by the hon. Member for Moseley that people who object to these duties because they and their clients and their employés are being injured by them, have no right to the use of paid advocates, while the people who for their own gain—I am using now an argument that is frequently used by hon. Members opposite—are asking for a duty, who are asking permission to impose this tax on the people of this country and to put it into their own pockets, are entitled to employ paid advocates. I do not think that that suggestion quite does justice to the position. Then the hon. Member said another thing. He said that the indus-
try is certainly suffering from abnormal unemployment, and I interrupted to ask whether he suggested that that was due to abnormal competition. He said that certainly the competition had been abnormal for a number of years. If the competition over a number of years has been abnormal, that is becoming normal. [Interruption.] Let me make it even clearer. If importation continues for a number of years at a particular figure which hon. Members assert is abnormal, you have got to go back to some period when the competition was not abnormal, and compare it with that. The report of the Committee helps us to do that, and gives certain figures. In paragraph 24, the Committee say:
The whole industry must be taken together and the comparison made, mainly at all events, with 1913.
That is the year which the Committee itself suggests, and that is the year to which the Parliamentary Secretary said just now we must direct our attention. If the condition of this industry is bad, as is asserted, if the industry is suffering on account of competition which is abnormal as compared with the year 1913, I will take the figures given, not by the paid advocates of the opponents, but by the Committee themselves. I find that on page 11 they say that in 1913 the value of retained imports of buttons was nearly £779,000. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, and it is agreed, that 1927 was an abnormal year, but in 1926 the retained imports had been reduced to £743,000. That is the decrease in value. It may be that some hon. Members will say, "Yes, you are talking about value, but what about the quantity?" The figures with regard to quantity are even more remarkable, because in 1913 the quantity of retained imports was 11½ million gross, in round figures, and in 1926 it was nine million gross. There is only one thing to be deduced from that. The hon. Gentleman says that that must be compared with the total consumption. I assume that the total consumption has gone up owing to the increase in population. I have no figures to show that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You get that by adding the production in this country to the imports.

Mr. CRAWFURD: At any rate, the retained imports have decreased from 11½ million gross to 9 million gross. Surely
it cannot possibly be urged, in face of that reduction in the imports remaining in this country, that it is owing to importation that the condition of this industry has become worse. Why has it become worse? A certain amount of reference has been made to linen buttons. I am not an authority on linen buttons. The hon. Member for Moseley last night referred to what he called snap-fasteners, and said they were used for certain purposes with which no doubt the hon. Member for Walthamstow was familiar. I disclaim any authority on these points. All that I know is that, from the information given to us, it is the case that the linen button, for reasons into which we had better not inquire too closely, but which we cannot ignore, has to a large extent gone out of fashion, and that the Report points to the fact that probably about 50 per cent. of the British manufacture consists of linen buttons. I agree with an hon. Friend who has spoken that this is not perhaps a large matter. It is a small matter, but the question of principle has to be argued on small as well as on large matters. We are told that if we take the two large classes of buttons—the vegetable ivory button which we are all wearing, and the so-called pearl button which is used on shirts and accounts for roughly 5,000,000 gross of the imports—we are told that a 33⅓ per cent. duty cannot possibly make any difference. With regard to the best class of button, the erinoid button, the fancy button that is used on ladies' coats, we are told that this country need not fear the competition of others. With the other class, the linen button, it is not a question of foreign importation, but of change of fashion. It does not seem to me, therefore, that this duty is going to do any good to anyone.
When the hon. Member for Moseley and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth make the speeches which they do make so often, assuming that they are taking the patriotic course, let me say to them that my chief complaint against them is their unpatriotic attitude. We are not the people who are pessimistic about the future; we do not go about saying that British industry cannot compete with foreigners without the protection of a tariff. We believe that the Free Trade principles which have made us the greatest industrial country in the world are capable of maintaining
that position for us, and I hold that it is to us that industry is entitled to look to give it, not fair play—because it is not a question of fair play. [Interruption.] We are entitled to say that we will not consent to the reintroduction of the 250 years' old system, born in 1662, based on monopolies and rights paid for and farmed out by patrons. We do not believe in a system of that kind, but we do believe in a system of free and unfettered competition which will bring to our people the products of the world at the cheapest possible rate.

Sir EVELYN CECIL: After the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not feel that there is much to answer in the speeches that have come from the other side, but I rise because in the midst of my constituency there is one of the large button factories, and I am more in touch with the matter than otherwise I should be. What has struck me in all the speeches made last night and to-day from the Benches opposite, is the constant endeavour that there seems to be to belittle this industry on account of the Free Trade phantom which seems to hover over hon. Members on the other side. What is the situation? This industry is one of considerable importance. If any hon. Member who has been talking about it as being contemptible or not substantial, or who has said that tombstones deserve more attention than buttons—if any such hon. Member were to come to my constituency, I am sure he would get very short shrift. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) talked about the industry being futile and contemptible. The hon. Member who has just spoken has endeavoured by figures to do the same thing.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I attempted to do nothing of the sort. I did not say one word to belittle the industry or to show that it is futile or contemptible. I admitted that where a principle was involved a small industry was important.

Sir E. CECIL: I am glad that the hon. Member repudiates the argument I have referred to. On several occasions during this Debate, hon. Members have said that the number of people employed was only 3,629, and that therefore it was a very small industry. They omitted to observe, as is shown in the Committee's report, that that figure applied to 1926,
and that the figure for 1913 was 6,844. Therefore, there has been a diminution of employment by about one-half. If that diminution is to continue, I can only say that the trade will disappear altogether. That is precisely what the Safeguarding of Industries Act is to prevent. This proposal came from a very impartial Committee, whose Chairman was an eminent ex-Indian King's Counsel who, I believe, belongs to no political club and has no political axe to grind. When a decision is come to by such a Committee, it seems to me that the House ought to listen to its recommendations with great care and special attention.
It is no use putting forward the suggestion that a 33⅓ per cent. duty is inadequate to meet the competition. I can only reply that two or three days ago it was stated in the newspapers—I cannot vouch for its absolute accuracy—that in Czechoslovakia, out of 3,000 employed in this industry, I think 2,000 were getting a week's notice on account of this proposed duty on buttons. It does not seem, therefore, that foreign countries consider that this proposal will be of no effect. When hon. Members opposite treat this safeguarding of an essential industry as serious Protection, I am inclined to believe that they must be haunted by rather inconvenient visions of the arguments used by the Liberal party and others both at the time of the Paris Resolutions in 1916 and during the Debates on the McKenna Duties. Bearing these facts in mind, I trust that this duty will be heartily supported by the House. We are told by hon. Members that the duty will have no real effect. Why not? Are they not aware, as I have reason to know from experience in my own constituency, that the McKenna Duties did an immense deal to enable Mr. Morris to beat Mr. Ford. Motor car production, by reason of the McKenna Duties, increased greatly in my constituency. It has increased so much that it has had to go to a bigger area. A modest proposal of the kind that we are discussing, made by an impartial Committee, is one that ought to be supported, and I heartily congratulate the Government on having brought it forward.

Mr. GILLETT: The speech of the right hon. Member who has just spoken is as disappointing as the Report of the Com-
mittee which dealt with this application. I was hoping that as he was speaking as a representative of the industry concerned, he would give a few particulars that the House has not been allowed to have so far. The hon. Member spoke of the manufacture of buttons as if there was only one kind of button in existence. That is one of the things that I complain of in the Report that has been presented to us. There are so few facts and figures given to us. There are two fundamental matters upon which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade laid stress. One is the number of people employed in the button industry. The hon. Member who has just spoken gave the impression that if only this duty were imposed, we should find the same number of people employed as were employed a few years ago. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) claimed it last night as one of the triumphs of Protection that such a result would automatically come. I do not know whether the hon. Member or the Parliamentary Secretary noticed a letter which appeared in the "Times" a few days ago from a gentleman—I am not acquainted with him—who is obviously closely connected with the trade. He attributed the fall in the numbers employed to one fact. Before the War there were large numbers employed in the East End in making cloth-covered buttons, and there was now no further demand for this kind of button. To this he attributed the decrease in the number of people employed. The cloth-covered button was not now required and he said that no imposition of duty would bring back that trade. We have no information of that kind in the Report.
The other point mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary concerned the duty imposed. The success of the whole scheme from the Government's point of view depends on preventing foreign buttons coming into this country and that depends on whether the amount of duty imposed is heavy enough. But the Report gives us no figures which will enable us to judge as to what duty would be required to attain this object. It only states that in the Committee's opinion the Japanese trade will probably not be affected. But to anyone like myself, who knows nothing about this industry, it is impossible to judge, without any figures,
how far the prevention of buttons coming into this country from Japan would supply work for people in this country. Neither does the Report give us any particulars to show the price of the Japanese buttons, so that it is impossible to compare them with the English product.
The writer of the letter also referred to the buttons worn on men's suits. He states the experiments he was interested in, in the manufacture of buttons of this kind, proved it was impossible to make them satisfactorily here and no amount of duty would alter this fact. I shall be very interested to know whether this letter has been brought to the notice

of the Board of Trade. The House will have noticed with some interest that the Report, unlike those we have had before on the Safeguarding of Industry, states that no handicap to the trade has been imposed by the exchange condition of money. The Committee agree that, although the trade is carried on in many other countries, this financial question is in no way affecting the problem. That is interesting as giving some idea of the financial settlement of Europe and as showing that progress has been made.

Question put, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 137.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[4.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cope, Major William
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Couper, J. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Albery, Irving James
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hills, Major John Walter


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Balniel, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Bennett, A. J.
Dixey, A. C.
Huntingfield, Lord


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kurd, Percy A.


Bethel, A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Betterton, Henry B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Briscoe, Richard George
Frees, Sir Walter de
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Buchan, John
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Long, Major Eric


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Lougher, Lewis


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Caine, Gordon Hall
Grace, John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacIntyre, Ian


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
McLean, Major A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hammersley, S. S,
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harland, A.
Malone, Major P. B.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Christie, J. A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Haslam, Henry C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rye, F. G.
Tinne, J. A.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sandors, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sandon, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Penny, Frederick George
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Dr. T.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Preston, William
Skelton, A. N.
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ramsden, E.
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Remnant, Sir James
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tasker, R. Inigo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Major L.
Templeton, W. P.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sextan, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hollins, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duckworth, John
Murnin, H.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edge, Sir William
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Colonel A.
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Groves, T.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T Henderson.


Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Motion made, and Question put. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 138.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fermoy, Lord
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fielder, E. B.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Apsley, Lord
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Glyn, Major R. G. C
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grace, John
Oakley, T.


Bennett, A. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Frederick George


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bethel, A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Birchall, Major J. Daarman
Hacking, Douglas H.
Preston, William


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall. Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Raine, Sir Walter


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Blundall, F. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Remnant, Sir James


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Buchan, John
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hills, Major John Walter
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Barman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Caine, Gordon Halt
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skeiton, A. N.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Clayton, G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jephcott, A. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Templeton, W. P.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cope, Major William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)
Watts, Dr. T.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Loder J. de V.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Long, Major Eric
Wells, S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, Lewis
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lich[...]ld)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Womersley, W. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacIntyre, Ian
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ellis, R. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somenset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.



Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hollins, A.
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Tomlinson, R, P.


Duckworth, John
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edge, Sir William
Murnin, H.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


England, Colonel A.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Riley Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

Order read for Consideration of Tenth and Subsequent Resolutions.

LICENCE DUTY ON ARTICULATED MOTOR VEHICLES.

10. "That, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, where a mechanically propelled vehicle used for drawing a trailer has the trailer attached to it by partial super-imposition, the vehicle and trailer shall, for the purpose of determining the rate of the licence duty chargeable under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, be treated as if they were a single vehicle used for drawing a trailer."

INCOME TAX.

CHARGE OF TAX.

11. "That—
(a) Income Tax for the year 1928–29 shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings in the pound, and in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at the following rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds:


For every pound of the first five hundred pounds of the excess.
Four shillings and ninepence.


For every pound of the next five hundred pounds of the excess.
Five shillings.


For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess.
Five shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess.
Six shillings and threepence.


For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess.
Seven shillings.


For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess.
Seven shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess.
Eight shillings.


For every pound of the next five thousand pounds of the excess.
Eight shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the next five thousand pounds of the excess.
Nine shillings.


For every pound of the next ten thousand pounds of the excess.
Nine shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the remainder of the excess.
Ten shillings.


(b) The same Super-tax shall be charged for the year 1928–29 as was charged for the year 1927–28.
(c) All such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax and Super-tax charged for the year 1927–28, shall, subject to the provisions of any enactments which were expressed to come into operation on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, or to apply in relation to Income Tax or Super-tax for the year beginning on that day, have effect with respect to the Income Tax and Super-tax charged far the year 1928–29.
(d) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year 1927–28 shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year 1928–29:
Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

OLD SINKING FUND.

12. "That the old Sinking Fund for the years ending respectively on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, shall, instead of being issued to the National Debt Commissioners, be carried to a suspense account for the purpose of being subsequently applied in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine."

TRANSFER TO EXCHEQUER OF PARTS OF ASSETS OF CURRENCY NOTE REDEMPTION ACCOUNT.

13. "That such part of the assets belonging to the Currency Note Redemption Account as is, in the opinion of the Treasury, having regard to the market value of those assets, in excess of the requirements of the Account shall, as the Treasury determines, be realised and the proceeds thereof paid into the Exchequer."

Tenth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HARRIS: This is one of the Resolutions which constitutes an extension of an existing duty. We have just discussed a Resolution which imposes a new duty, and now we are discussing a Resolution which will affect a great number of users of motor vehicles. I think that
the House and the country, as well as the motor car industry, are entitled to know why, after the experience of the past years, we are still further to extend this duty. I should have thought that the Government would have desired to assist the trader who uses a trailer, but I do not think the extension of this duty will do that. I should like to have an explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom we are always pleased to hear.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is only one point which I want to raise on this Resolution. There are not only trailers used for the carriage of goods about the country by road transport companies, but there are also occasional trailers, and those are the kind of trailers which I chiefly have in mind. One of these trailers is the caravan trailer. Nowadays, a number of people are attempting to get back to nature by using caravans, which they tow behind motor cars. They then rent a field from a farmer and put the caravan there for a number of weeks. They really do very little damage to the road. Then there are the travelling showmen. They use their trailers in order to carry their trapezes and circus equipment going from fair ground to fair ground. They are probably only on the road two or three times a year. Do I understand that they come under this Resolution?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley) indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that the Minister of Transport says that is not so, but I think we should have an explanation from him on this point.

Colonel ASHLEY: I did not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member in his speech, because he so seldom has an opportunity of addressing the House, but, if I may venture to interject anything, I can tell him that this Resolution has nothing at all to do with these showmen or their trailers. It is a very simple Resolution designed to stop a small hole in the taxation net. In 1923, it was found that where a trailer was superimposed upon a tractor, such a vehicle escaped its due share of taxation, although it was a fairly heavy vehicle and did substantial damage to the roads, because the law did not recognise that it was a new form of vehicle
and it had to be rated on horse-power. In 1923, that hole was properly stopped, with the unanimous consent of the House, but unfortunately the Resolution which imposed that tax had "six wheels" put into it. Now the ingenuity of the manufacturers has devised a particular vehicle with eight wheels, and all we seek now to say is that the eight-wheeler or the ten-wheeler, as it happens to be, shall pay the same tax as the six-wheeler.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Eleventh Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move to leave out from the word "pound," in line 3, to the end of line 26.
In moving this Amendment, I am submitting to the House a recommendation which I hope will be received with sympathy in all parts of the House, including the Government Bench. The suggestion which I shall make when I come to it will be a fairly simple one, but, before I do so, I am afraid that it will be necessary to refer to certain somewhat highly technical points. I am going to ask the kind indulgence of the House, because I feel that I am undertaking a task which many men of far greater ability than I can lay claim to would find anything but an easy task. May I first of all just remind the House of what it is that this Income Tax Resolution does? In the first place, it resolves that Income Tax shall be payable for this present financial year at the same rate as last year; secondly, that Super-tax shall be payable this year at the same rate as last year, and then there are other words added to the effect, first of all, that all enactments which applied to Income Tax and Super-tax last year shall apply this year, and, further, that all enactments—I am putting it quite shortly and simply—which were included in last year's Finance Act and which, under the provisions of that Act, were not to come into operation until this year, are to apply in this financial year. The object of the first and second Amendments which T have down on the Paper, taken together,
would be to omit from this Income Tax Resolution all those parts which seek to bring into effect, or to bring to life, those sections of last year's Finance Act which were not to come into operation until this year.
May I take one of the provisions in last year's Act which is not to come into operation until this year? It is Section 31, which imposes Super-tax on certain persons or certain companies who were not liable to Super-tax otherwise than under that enactment. That enactment was not to come into operation until this year. Members of the House generally, however inexpert they may be in matters of procedure, at any rate understand this, that, under our Standing Orders, legislation imposing a new tax cannot be entered upon without a previous Financial Resolution. The reasons for that and the advantages of it I will refer to in a moment. The effect of Section 31 of last year's Finance Act, as I have stated, was to impose a tax on certain persons and companies which had not been liable for it before. But it was not preceded by a Financial Resolution. When we came to inquire as to the reason of that, it appeared that a Financial Resolution was not technically necessary last year because this tax-creating Section would not create any tax for the year then in contemplation but only for the next following, that is for the present, financial year, and that it would be given life to by the general Income Tax and Super-tax Resolution this year.
That system of passing legislation to create a tax with postponed effect, and doing it without a previous Financial Resolution, has, I believe, grown up as a result of some private ruling which was given by the then Chairman of Ways and Means in connection with a Revenue Bill, a machinery Bill, which, naturally, was not to come into operation until a future date. It was found on examining that Bill, that though it was in the main merely a machinery Bill, the result of the machinery was that to some extent, here and there, there was a new tax created, and I understand that, some private Ruling was given at that time that a Financial Resolution was not required. I only want to say, that I do not for one moment desire to question any previous Rulings which have been given and
which have resulted in this course to which I am now referring of passing legislation for the purpose of imposing a tax and bringing it into operation by a subsequent Financial Resolution instead of having the Financial Resolution before the legislation is made.
I am going to submit to the House, and I am going to do so with some confidence that my submission will be sympathetically received, that if our Standing Orders are such that this practice can be commonly and extensively adopted, it is high time that we considered whether it is not necessary to make some kind of reform in regard to our financial procedure to prevent it happening. The Standing Order which governs this particular matter is Standing Order No. 71—one of the oldest of our Standing Orders—which, if I may just pick out shortly the necesasry words, is to this effect:
If any Motion be made in the House for any … charge upon the public revenue, … or for any charge upon the people, the consideration … shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned until such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House before any Resolution or Vote of the House do pass therein.
The reason for this Standing Order is easy to understand, and is not difficult to find. The imposition of a new charge upon the people is, obviously, a matter of very great importance. It is a matter which, according to the whole theory of our constitution and the liberties of our people, is, and should be, the very peculiar care of Members of the House of Commons. I say, advisedly, Members of the House of Commons, because I mean particularly the representatives in this House of the Commons of the country, and that in this sense the position of a Member of the House of Commons, though he may sit upon the Front Bench, is far more important than his position as a Member of the Government. The important thing is, that we, as the representatives of the Commons, should see that, before any new tax is charged upon the people of this country or any section of the people of this country, we have full warning of it, and full opportunity to consider and understand it before, by means of our votes and our decisions, that charge upon the people is made.
I am going to take as an illustration Section 31 of last year's Finance Act, to which I have referred, and a very excellent illustration it makes. Hon. Members who were in the House last year will, no doubt, have in mind that on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill that Clause was criticised very severely indeed. As a result of those criticisms, which were met with the sympathy and understanding one expects from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Clause came to be so altered in the various stages before it became part of the Act of Parliament, that, among many other little things I may mention, instead of being a Clause of less than two and a-half pages, it became a Section of more than five pages, and, incidentally, the number and class of persons and companies who were rendered liable to tax under that Section was very materially reduced.
I want to refer, incidentally, to one other Section passed in the same way, one in connection with the change over from Super-tax to the Surtax. Although technically there may possibly be a slight dispute as to whether there is definitely a new charge upon the people, some of us venture to think that it is so. Hon. Members will recall the Section I mean when I say that it is the one under which when a man dies an extra year of Super-tax or Surtax is payable—one more year's tax than would have been payable if we had not had this alteration in the law. In that case, also, there was no Financial Resolution, and it was not until we got to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that we found a new tax was to be made, when an Amendment was brought before the House to that Section which was moved under the firm belief that there was an error in the drafting of that Clause, and that it was not intended to create this extra tax. But when that Amendment was moved, we were told from the Treasury Bench, to the great astonishment of many of us, that they did understand that that was the effect of the Clause, and that it was the intention of the Clause. Hon. Members will see at once that had there been a Financial Resolution before that, that particular mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of Members of this House could never have arisen, and they could have con-
sidered the matter, made their criticisms in time, and had the question fully discussed.
Hon. Members will realise, therefore, that what I want to submit to the House is, that it is of great importance—never mind to which party in the House we may belong—that the House of Commons, before it has been—I use the word in no offensive sense—inveigled into passing legislation which imposes a new tax upon any class of people in this country, should have full warning of it, and a fair opportunity of discussing it before the actual wording of the legislation imposing that tax is decided upon and brought before this House. I have explained to the House how the practice of which I complain has grown up. It may be a very difficult matter to know exactly how it is to be dealt with or how my criticism should be met, but I feel certain that in the endeavour to do something of that kind we should have the support of every Member in the House who has held office as Chancellor of the Exchequer or otherwise in the Treasury, to whichever party he may belong. I am firmly hoping that with their assistance and the assistance of the present Mr. Speaker, whose knowledge of procedure in matters of this kind is unrivalled, we shall be able to arrive at, if necessary, some alteration in the Standing Orders, or some considered ruling from the Chair to see that in future there shall be the necessity for a Financial Resolution to be considered in Committee of this House before any legislation will, either immediately or at any future period, impose the charge of a tax upon any of the people of this country.
May I refer to one or two authorities as to the importance of this particular procedure by way of Financial Resolution in Committee before legislation is carried? One of the books which is a splendid work, and, I suppose, one of the greatest authorities in connection with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and its financial procedure, is Redlich and Ilbert from which I quote these words in reference to the particular Standing Order in question.
All these rules are measures intended to protect the House against itself"—
and I would say that sometimes that means, to protect the Members of this
House against those who sit upon the Government Benches or against those in Government Departments—
to prevent hasty grants of money and ill-considered increases in the responsibilities of the people.
Again, I take these words from the same authority:
It is an express rule that all proposals as to taxes or grants, or, indeed, any matter concerning the income or expenditure of the nation, must be considered in a Committee of the whole House before the Measures for giving effect to them are brought before the House.
I would like to go back a little further. An hon. Member who is not new in his place, speaking some time ago from the Liberal Benches, was referring to shibboleths, and disparaging certain references to something which had been said to have happened in the year 1660, or thereabouts. But hon. Members of this House will not regard as musty or unworthy of notice the history of the building up of the power of the Commons in this country, and I want to refer to something as far back as 1670. There is in the Library of this House a book the title of which is:

"MEMORIALS OF THE METHOD AND MANNER of PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT IN PASSING BILLS,

together with several Rules and Customs which by long and constant practice have obtained the name of

'ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.'

Gathered by observation, and out of the Journal Books from the time of Edward VI.

(By Henry Scobel, Esq., Clerk of Parliament.)

Never before printed.

Printed in London in the year 1670."

[An HON. MEMBER: "What is the price?"] I think the price would depend upon the pocket of the person who wanted it. The book is to be found in the Library of this House. I want quite seriously to call the attention of the House to the fact that this book contains those orders which have grown up in this way and had been established by the Commons of this country in the days when they were really engaged in a hard struggle to preserve the liberties of the people against the Crown by
reason of their financial control. The passage which I wish to quote from that book is this—and will hon. Members bear in mind that this is practically, apparently, a Standing Order of the House of Commons as far back as 1670:
Some bills of great concernment, and chiefly bills to impose a tax or raise money from the people, are committed to a committee of the whole House; to the end there may be opportunity for fuller debates, for that at a committee the members have liberty to speak as often as they shall see cause, to one question; and that such Bills, being of general concernment, should be most solemnly proceeded in, and well weighed; and sometimes when a bill of that nature hath been conceived fit to be made, the House hath thought fit to resolve themselves into a committee, and either there or in the House to vote some heads for direction of such as shall be imployed to prepare the Bill.
The House will see that even so long ago as 1670, when our tax laws were far less complicated than to-day, the Commons of this country regarded it as necessary in the interests of the people that when a proposal was brought in to create a charge upon the people, it should be considered in Committee of the Whole House before the Bill was brought forward, in order that some instruction might be given to those who were to be employed in preparing the Bill.

I thank the House for listening to what, I am afraid, has been a difficult case to explain; but I do express the hope that in calling attention to this matter I shall have the sympathy of all parties in this House, and of the present Front Bench. It will be fairly obvious from what I have said that I have moved this Amendment not in any controversial spirit or with a view to creating any difficulty for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose absence we all deeply deplore. Important as I believe this principle to be, the immediate application of it in regard to this Section in last year's Finance Act is not now of very great importance. So far as the harm is concerned, the harm occurred last year, when we did not have a Financial Resolution. Therefore, on this occasion, if I can get, as I hope to get, some expression of opinion from those who are more competent than I am to speak on this matter, I shall content myself with asking leave to withdraw the Amendment if, as I rather anticipate
they will, the Government say that, if it were passed now, it would create a somewhat serious displacement of the machinery in connection with Income Tax and Super-tax in the present year.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment, very much for the reason that my hon. Friend has already given. I think that after the experience of this week few hon. Members can doubt the value of a Financial Resolution. We have had an instance this week where taxation proposed by His Majesty's Government has been altered in the Budget Resolution, under pressure from the House of Commons. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is undesirable that taxation should be brought in the Finance Bill of one year which is not to come into effect until the next year. All hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion on the Finance Bill will remember that in the first place the taxes are prepared in very difficult and technical language and, secondly, the amount of work that has to be got through in the Committee stage is so great that time is limited and there is not adequate opportunity for discussion. The advantage of a Financial Resolution is to draw the attention of the House to the proposals of the Government, and these are discussed before they are put down in legislative form. It is for that reason that, if an Amendment be necessary in our Standing Orders, I trust those who look after these matters will pay attention to this point. There is always our national characteristic practice of broadening down from precedent on to precedent, and rulings are perhaps given that cover a revenue which may be used as precedents for taxation proposals in Finance Bills. It may be ruled that it was possible for the Government to introduce a direct tax into one Finance Bill without a Financial Resolution, provided that it was covered by some Financial Resolution next year when the tax became operative. The forms of this House have been made so as to give a good deal of trouble to the Executive in imposing new taxation and in order that matters may be thrashed out in full not once but many times before any burdens are placed upon His Majesty's subjects, and it would be a derogation of our duty if we were to permit any relaxation of that rule.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I intervene with hesitation in the discussion of what is, undoubtedly, a very important point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), and certainly one which must appeal to all who are interested in the financial practice of the House; but we must be perfectly clear in our minds, first of all, as to the circumstances which surround this particular matter. This goes back to Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1922, which was designed to deal with certain problems connected with the evasion of Super-tax. In succeeding years, it was felt that that Section was not adequate for the purpose that it had in view. Then we come to the proposals of the Government in 1927, when it was intended to strengthen that Section in the Act of 1922 to deal with evasion, and the controversy that took place in the House at that time. Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1927, as the hon. Member for Watford pointed out, is very different from what was originally proposed. The original proposal was comparatively short, and some of us on this side of the House, and I trust other hon. Members interested in preventing tax evasion, thought that it, appeared to be reasonably adequate for the purpose. But it was argued by hon. Members, particularly on the other side of the House, that the scheme of the Government went beyond what was strictly required and that it would, in fact, interfere with the sound conduct of a considerable section of business in this country. In the last resort, the Clause was modified very considerably, and, I should have thought, modified in the direction which many hon. Members opposite particularly desired. The hon. Member for Watford also referred to Section 42 of the Finance Act of 1927 in pleading his present case. That Section is simply a linking together of Income Tax and Super-tax substantially on the lines which were recommended by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax in 1919, and to make it, what I would call for the purpose of popular debate, a continuous process. That was given effect to in Section 42 of the Act of 1927.
I come now to the particular point which the hon. Member has raised. He has indicated to the House, quite frankly, that he does not intend to press
his Amendment, because, if it were pressed, the scheme would very largely disappear, and we should, on this specific issue, be thrown back to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1922, which I cannot imagine is the intention of the hon. Member or of many hon. Members on the other side. Therefore, we need not waste time arguing that point. The material point is whether something is taking place in this procedure which weakens the control of the House of Commons to the extent that it evades or takes away the preliminary Financial Resolution which, beyond all question, is a very important part of our practice in problems of this kind. I can certainly speak for all hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we wish to preserve the very fullest control for all sections of the House of Commons over the imposition of any charge made in this country, and at all times; but the question which arises here, and which was present in our minds when this problem was debated a year ago, is whether in fact we were imposing a charge in the proposals that were raised in debate. At that time—of course, I do not profess to be an authority on the Rules of the House—it appeared to me that, first of all, we were not actually imposing a charge within the financial year for which we were legislating in the Budget proposals at that time. We were making a declaration as to what we intended to do or what would take place in the financial year succeeding the one which we had immediately in mind. It occurred to me that the position was one very largely of a declaratory character. The hon. Member for Watford suggests that in the mingling of the Income Tax and the Super-tax into what is now the Income Tax and Surtax scheme, we had, in fact, imposed or increased a charge. I find it difficult to believe that that is the case, and I cannot help feeling that the effective reply will be found in the ordinary administration of Income Tax and Super-tax in this country, and particularly in the lag which exists in one department of the tax, perhaps to some extent in assessment and in collection.
The broad view which some of us took, rightly or wrongly, was that in this matter the Government were clearly acting on a declaratory basis and outlining
a policy for a time succeeding the precise financial year for which they were making provision. Accordingly, as they were not in fact imposing a charge a Financial Resolution was, strictly speaking, not required. I have only expressed the view which we held at that time. Far be it from me to suggest that there may not be all kinds of hidden dangers which ordinary Members of the House of Commons, as most of us are, find it very difficult to appreciate. I can only close on this note, that I do not see any advantage whatever in a Financial Resolution unless, in fact, a definite charge is imposed. I can see no value in a Financial Resolution which is only declaratory in character, and unless the Government have some very strong plea to put on that point probably a view of that kind cannot be very easily shaken.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has done a service to the House in calling attention to a matter which would always be an extremely interesting subject of Debate, at a time when it really arises for practical action. To-day, he has had to bring it forward attached to an Amendment which he does not, as he says, intend to press. I need not spend time in dealing with the Amendment, because he does not intend to press it, and I could not accept it. It would, indeed, deprive the taxpayer of the protection which Section 31 gives, that there shall not be evasion in certain cases, and it would undo the whole of the work which we did last year in that connection. But the most interesting point raised by the hon. Member I can reply to in these terms. The Government have no desire whatever to deprive the people of the protection that is given by the procedure of the House, and I think the actual procedure that was followed last year and that will be completed to-day, has not deprived the people of the protection to which they are entitled. The Financial Resolution is intended to give notice to Members of the House before they pass an Act which creates a tax. Not only has notice been given, but much longer notice has been given than usual. Usually, a Financial Resolution precedes a Bill by a few days or a week at most. On this occasion, there has been a year of notice. There have been two discussions in this House,
one last year and another to-day, and twice the House of Commons has had the opportunity of saying whether or not it would agree to the tax, if there is a new tax contained in the Resolution.
I will not argue whether there is or is not a new tax. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for the Opposition is not clear that there is a new tax. There are, I think, more people brought within the ambit of taxation, but that also may be disputable. It is, however, immaterial from my point of view, because I would say that even if there is a new tax then the procedure which is intended to protect the people has been followed, not merely in the ordinary way, but in a way which gives notice of at least a year between the Resolution and the actual tax. I quite realise that there may be two views upon this subject. We are in order—there is no doubt about that. The procedure of the Government is in order. That was held last year by Mr. Speaker, and we have followed that procedure and this is not being done for the first time. There are several precedents for this course. It may well be, however, notwithstanding the fact that we are in order, notwithstanding the fact that we are following precedent, that amendments of the procedure and variations of the Rules which at present cover us, might be desirable, and, if Mr. Speaker were to indicate that he desired that matter to be considered, then I am sure that, on the part of the Government, he would be entitled to and would receive any assistance we were able to give.

Sir FRANK MEYER: The right hon. Gentleman is doubtful as to whether under this Resolution and under the Section of the Finance Act which we discussed last year, any new taxation is proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) feels confident that no new taxation is proposed. I suggest humbly to the House, as I did last year when I spoke on this question, that there is a new tax proposed in the sense that an extra year of Super-tax is imposed upon the people who are liable to that tax. I do not propose to elaborate that point now, because it was gone into fully last year. If it is desired to raise that matter again I think the proper time to do so is when the Finance Bill comes before us.
But, inasmuch as a Clause of that Finance Bill will be founded on the Resolution now before the House, and as the Resolution introduces into our fiscal system something entirely new—a combination of Income Tax and Super-tax in one tax—and as we have placed before us a schedule setting out the rate of that tax as a whole, I do think it is essential that we should be clear in the House to-day as to exactly what the Resolution means. I have been studying it with some care, and I am bound to say that, after doing my best to understand it, I am not able to reconcile the first and second paragraphs of the Resolution without coming to the conclusion that a double taxation is imposed.
The first part of the Resolution lays it down that Income Tax shall be charged for the year 1928–1929 at a standard rate and, in the case of individuals with incomes over £2,000, it then lays down the total rates they have to pay, rising from 4s. 9d. up to 10s. Then paragraph ( b) of the Resolution says that Super-tax shall be charged for the year 1928–1929 as for the year 1927–1928. I can only read that as meaning that for the year 1928–1929, the taxpayer will have to pay this combined Income Tax and Super-tax at the rates laid down in the first paragraph,  plus Super-tax for 1928–1929 the same as was charged for 1927–1928. I am certain that is not the intention of the Government, but, reading the Resolution through again and again, I am unable to arrive at any other interpretation of these two paragraphs taken together. I am certain that an explanation will be forthcoming, but as a matter of plain English, the Resolution seems to bear the meaning I have indicated. Therefore, I think we are entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State for War or from the Financial Secretary, as to how these words can be interpreted to mean anything else and how they can carry out the intention of the Government, which is to do away with Super-tax as from January next year and have Income Tax and Surtax all in one. If that be so, what is the necessity for paragraph (b)? Is it intended that the amount on which taxation shall be assessed is to be the same two years in succession? That was what I understood last year, but the phaseology of paragraph ( b) could not be in-
terpreted in that way and the House is entitled to an explanation from the Government.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Like the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), I was at first sight exceedingly disturbed about the form of this Resolution. To tine as to him, it appeared that charges were to be imposed on the subject which in the aggregate would amount at the highest rate to 20s. in the £ for Super-tax. But on reconsideration of the Resolution I arrived at the conclusion that not even the present Government could propose a tax of that amount. Concerning the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), I cannot help feeling that as regards paragraph (a), which sets out the rate of Surtax, he was right in assuming that no new charge was to be imposed upon the people. But paragraph (b), which says that the same Super-tax shall be charged for the year 1228–29 as was charged for 1927–28, seems to me less clear than paragraph (a). With all those who have spoken I feel that a great debt of gratitude is due to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) for bringing before the attention of the House and the country the enormous importance of the procedure which this House has adopted in regard to finance after long experience.
I appreciate the exceedingly ingenious defence of that procedure which was put up by the Secretary of State for War, but I am a little doubtful about it. His apology was that instead of having only a few weeks, or it might be only a few days notice of a contemplated change in taxation, we have, under the procedure which the Government have thought fit to adopt, 12 months notice. But does not that prove a little too much? If the Government, who are careful to give us 12 months notice, are only substituting, in fact, one form of financial procedure for another, does not that procedure, in itself, imply the imposition of a new charge? Otherwise what would be the point of giving 12 months notice of a change which was to come into operation this year? For those and other reasons which have already been communicated to the House I should like, once more, to express the gratitude which I am sure
is felt in all quarters of the House to my hen. Friend the Member for Watford for moving the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can we have an explanation from the Government on the point made by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer)? It is quite obvious that the drafting of this Resolution has been done very skilfully—so skilfully as to render it unintelligible to the ordinary Member of the House. What we want to know is whether or not paragraph ( b) means that there shall be Super-tax in addition to the scale of taxation which appears in paragraph ( a). It is a very simple point, and I hope the Secretary of State for War, who is in charge on this question, will be able to give a definite answer.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-E.VANS: I think I can give a definite answer. The Super-tax for 1927–28, that is the old style Super-tax, is payable in January, 1929, and the Surtax—that is the new style of Super-tax—for 1928–29 is payable in January, 1930. Unless both these paragraphs ( a) and ( b) were passed now, the income for the year 1927–28 would be assessed neither for Super-tax nor for Surtax. In this Resolution the payments are continuous—first Super-tax, old style, and then, in 1930, Surtax, new style.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am afraid that explanation is not as clear to the House as it may be to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to understand it quite clearly. We are legislating to-day for two things. We are fixing the rate of Super-tax for 1927–28, and we are fixing the combined tax for the following year, and what reason is there for having to do two years' work to-day? I think that is what is troubling the House, and a much clearer explanation than we have had of the necessity and implications of this Resolution would give widespread satisfaction in every quarter of the House.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Unless the provision were made for this transitional period, there would be no Super-tax or Surtax payable in January, 1929, and that is why both are included in this Resolution, one payable in 1929 and the other payable in 1930.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Twelfth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the word "years," and to insert thereof the word "year."
This Resolution raises, I am afraid, something about as complicated as the last, because it brings us to the treatment which the Government have meted out to the Sinking Fund and their whole new policy concerning the method of redeeming the National Debt. This is the first of a series of Amendments, the remainder of which are consequential, and in moving it I shall have the opportunity of speaking on the whole Resolution, so that repeated discussions will not be necessary. This Resolution involves an issue a great deal more important than was indicated in the remarks concerning it which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his Budget speech. I am not for the moment discussing whether or not we, on this side, approve of what he is doing, but the point—

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: On a point of Order. Do I understand that we are discussing each Amendment separately, or is the whole of the Resolution being discussed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) is moving his first Amendment, but I imagine that he is raising all the questions which appear in his three subsequent Amendments—(1), in line 1, to leave out the word "respectively"; (2), to leave out the words "on the 31st day of March, 1928, and"; and (3), in line 2, to leave out the words "and the 31st day of March, 1929".

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That is so.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that that does not preclude the last Amendment on this Resolution, standing in my name, in line 5, after the word "manner," to insert the words "of debt redemption".

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not if that Amendment raises some fresh point altogether.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This Resolution, if it is accepted and followed up, will bring to an end the system by which the Budget surplus of each year is put to the redemption of the National Debt, and will, that is to say, sweep away what this Resolution, using the technical term, calls the old Sinking Fund, which has been established in this country, I believe, for over 60 years. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt almost entirely upon his proposals concerning the new Sinking Fund, but he did not make it clear that he was meting out quite unprecedented treatment to this old Sinking Fund, consisting of Budget surpluses, which was established about 1866. His broad plan, as unfolded in the Budget speech, was this, that he is forming what is called the new Sinking Fund, that is to say, the Sinking Fund which was refashioned two or three years ago by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which, as the present Chancellor explained, was originally set up by Sir Stafford North-cote; and that he is going back to the policy which Sir Stafford Northcote established of making this Sinking Fund one containing what he called a fixed charge, so that, as the National Debt is redeemed and a little money is saved on interest, that money goes for the further redemption of the Debt, and it becomes cumulative in its effect.
We are not proposing, so far as we are concerned, to raise any objection to the principle of a Sinking Fund based upon a fixed charge, but one thing is essential. If you are going to do that, you must provide sufficient money to be sure that that fixed charge will be large enough to meet its requirements and to have a margin in addition for any contingency which may arise, such as a rise in the rate of interest on Treasury bills. Our criticism of this part of the Budget is that, as a matter of fact, it does not provide sufficient money for the scheme laid down. The scheme is too ambitious, and, because it does not provide sufficient money, when you look into the details you find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been driven to adopt a whole series of wangles with regard to the Treasury Note Reserve and the Savings Certificates, and among other things he has had to raid this old Sinking Fund, although his speech did not indicate what exactly was being per-
petrated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going back to the system established by Sir Stafford Northcote, but, as a matter of fact, this is not that system. Sir Stafford North-cote established the new Sinking Fund, of the type which the Chancellor has explained, but at the same time he retained the old Sinking Fund, the Budget surpluses, so that revenue was coming from two sources for the purpose of redeeming the National Debt.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has established a new Sinking Fund, but he has not provided sufficient money in order to finance the scheme, and because he has not done that, he is taking the money out of the old Sinking Fund in order to balance his accounts in the new Sinking Fund. What he is doing is that, in the very process of establishing a new Sinking Fund, he is raiding the Sinking Fund which we already possess. That is what is happening, and it is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking that he can hide this fact by saying that if other Chancellors were to follow his policy, the National Debt would be wiped out in 50 years. I am not discussing the amount at all; I am discussing this method, which involves what is really an attempt at a public deception, but that public deception has not succeeded, because the result of this method has been that the price of Government securities fell immediately the Budget statement was made, and fell admittedly because of the treatment of this old Sinking Fund.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They went up yesterday.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Naturally, but we know that the factors which make securities go up and down are numerous. If you impose an adverse factor, that drives them down, and if they may subsequently go up, they are still lower than they would be if that adverse factor had not been applied. [ Interruption.]—Hon. Members seem to contest that proposition. May I then support myself by the remarks on the subject, made two days after the Budget was introduced, by the City correspondent of the "Times"? That is an authority which I hope hon. Members opposite will consider we are entitled to quote, and I hope
the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will answer it instead of being merely amused. Writing in the "Times" of 26th April, the City correspondent stated:
The only market which failed to derive any benefit from the Budget was that for British Government securities, which closed lower on the day. This was due to the Sinking Fund proposals. The raiding of the old Sinking Fund—namely, the surplus of £4,239,000 realised on last year's Budget—was described as very objectionable, for hitherto Budget surpluses have always been applied automatically to reduction of debt. As was anticipated, the proposal to fix the annual debt charge was criti[...]ised on the ground that it may prove to be a device for raiding the Sinking Fund.
There is one further feature of this Resolution to which I wish to call special attention, because I do not think it has any precedent in our financial history. By this Resolution the Government not only take the Budget surplus of last year, but they are empowered to raid any Budget surplus which may accrue next year; that is to say, it lays down the right to raid the old Sinking Fund in advance. I have not been able to find any precedent for this at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his speech that there had been raids on the Sinking Fund in the past—not very many; about once in 10 years or so—but on each occasion the Government justified themselves by saying that on account of the special difficulties and circumstances of the year they were entitled to take that action. But here is a proposal by which the Government take power to raid in advance, quite apart from there being any exceptional circumstances. It is pretty clear that, if it is done, this old Sinking Fund comes finally to an end, and if that is what is intended, we move this Amendment because we are entitled to have information from the Government as to what they mean on that point. Looking at the figures of the old Sinking Fund policy, this is indicated, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer established his new Sinking Fund, but he is giving himself so small a financial margin that., if any contingency arose, like a rise in the rate of interest, the money he has provided would not cover his obligations, and money would have to be found from some other source. This Resolution, obviously, indicates what that other source is intended to be.
This is not merely a minor matter of the Sinking Fund of one year. If we are now taking the step which means that this old sinking Fund is to disappear, we are really taking a major step in the history of the National Debt. This old Sinking Fund has been very important. I have been looking at the figures of the last six or seven years, from 1920 onwards, and I find that since that time, this old Sinking Fund has redeemed nearly £450,000,000 of National Debt, which is much more than the new Sinking Fund to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer confines his attention. This is really, therefore, a major question. It seems to me that we are watching the passing of this old Sinking Fund, and if that be the Government's policy, it ought to be definitely stated. This Amendment is moved in order that a definite statement of their intentions may be made.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment. In common with many other Members of the House, when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, I was carried away by the buoyancy of his optimism into believing that, in some respects, he was producing a good financial scheme; but with every day that has elapsed since then, and with every day that I have studied in detail these proposals with regard to the Sinking Fund, I have realised that that part of his speech, at any rate, consists of what my hon. Friend below me calls a series of wangles, and which I would call a number of devices.

Mr. HASLAM: May I ask if the word "wangle" is Parliamentary?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a term of art, but I have always understood it to be another word for "device."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think I am, at least, in order in saying that the proposals include a number of devices which are quite unworthy of the high traditions of national finance to which we are accustomed in this country. The particular matter which is dealt with in the Twelfth Resolution is confined to the question of the treatment of the surplus on the financial years 1927 to 1928, and 1928 to 1929. We shall have particulars on the later Resolution dealing with the other devices which have been adopted to deal with the Sink-
ing Fund as a whole. On this matter, there is, first of all, the treatment of last year's surplus. The Chancellor says that, instead of that being handed over to the Debt Commissioners, it should be put into a Suspense Fund. As a matter of fact, what has happened to that £4,000,000 odd already? It may not have been handed to the Debt Commissioners, but it has certainly been used to reduce the Floating Debt, and, therefore, what is actually proposed by the Chancellor, is that this £4,000,000 odd shall be re-borrowed. That is surely a proposal which is very injurious to the credit of this country.
Now we come to the provision for the year 1928 to 1929. That consists, in fact, of two parts. There is, first, the setting aside of the money derived from the Petrol Duty into this Suspense Fund to meet the occasion of the new de-rating proposals. In the second place, there is a proposal to raid any accidental balance that there may be in the ordinary course of the Budget. I suggest that both these separate devices are injurious in themselves. First, in regard to the accidental balance, whatever it may be. I am not quite clear that the House fully appreciates the effect of the change of procedure adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I understand it—I shall be corrected, no doubt, if I am wrong—in previous years the Chancellor has set aside a definite sum as a Sinking Fund, and that definite sum, £65,000,000 last year, was to be applied to the relief of debt, and was so applied. In the year which we are now considering, 1928 to 1929, there is in the accounts a figure of £65,000,000 put down for the Sinking Fund, but, as I understand it, that is merely an estimate of the amount that will be so used. In the event of the interest on the major part of the Debt rising above the amount anticipated, or in the event of the amount of interest on the Savings Certificates rising above the amount estimated, this figure of £65,000,000 will he very much cut down. It may be, and I think is likely to be, reduced to the amount of several millions below £65,000,000. If that be the right interpretation, we shall be faced at the end of this year with this position. Even if there be an accidental balance to this Budget, we may be faced with a very
great reduction in the figure of £65,000,000, and yet the accidental surplus will not be used to increase it up to the full amount of £65,000,000.
In the second place, we have to deal with the definite allocation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the yield of the Petrol Duty, for that is what it comes to. With regard to that, the Minister of Health, in defending the Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued in this way. He said, "If we were proposing to run into debt, and spend this year money that we were only to get next year, we should be blamed. We certainly ought not to be blamed for getting money in advance before we need to spend it. If a company were to do that it would be very laudable." I would remind the Government that the national finances are not in the same position as the finances of a company. What is required is not to find the money a year in advance of the occasion of spending it. The right method, the method that has been adopted by all Chancellors of the Exchequer in times gone by, is to find the money in the exact year in which it is required. Why is that the case? Because it is a very improper thing to place a burden upon the taxpayers in one particular year for some benefit that you may confer upon them in the following year. The right method of finance is to use the money year by year as it is required. It is equally wrong to spend money to-day by raising a debt. It is equally wrong to raise more money than you require in the financial year, in order to spend it in some subsequent year. These are wrong principles. The right principle is to raise the money in the year in which it is required.
That leads me to consider why the Chancellor has adopted this course. I sweep away his attempt at camouflage in the explanations which he has given. The Chancellor is like a conjurer who, when he wants to do his trick, proceeds with some excellent patter in order to take in those who are listening to him. You have to look to what he does, and not to what he says. What he is actually doing is to put aside, out of unnecessary taxation in this year, a sum which will be available in a future year. Why is he doing that? It is perfectly clear to those who go behind finance to the electoral situation. Assuming that the calculations of the Government are correct,
the Election will take place after next year's Budget. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to be able to do, is to make a great Budget next year, in which he gives away great benefits and reduces taxation. If he has raised an unnecessarily large amount of money this year, he will be able, as a result to reduce taxation next year. That is perfectly clearly the object of the proposal, but it is not an object to which this House ought to be a party. We ought to be a party to dealing with the finances of the country in the recognised way, and to finding the money at the proper time when it is required, and net to place upon the taxpayer the burden of raising money which is not needed for the immediate requirements of the State.
The fact is that the whole of this Budget, the whole of the devices which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced, are rather like the way in which some shady company chairman issues his balance sheet to the shareholders. Most Members know quite well that the form in which the company's balance sheet and profit and loss account actually see the light of day is not the form in which it is first decided between the directors of the company and their auditors. It is certainly not so in the case of the disreputable companies. A great deal of window dressing goes on between the drawing up of the accounts in the natural form and the shape in which they are presented to the shareholders. What the Chancellor is doing is that same kind of shady window-dressing with the national accounts which the disreputable company director does with the affairs of a private company. I, for one, as an upholder of the high tradition of finance in this country, disapprove of these devices, of these subterfuges in order to disguise the real facts. What we want in this House, and what we want the country to have, is an accurate knowledge of the finances of the country. I disapprove of the method in which they are presented; one part of that humbugging method is this proposal to sequester the surplus of last year, and still more to sequester all the surplus that may arise in a forthcoming year, for the purposes of putting it to the Suspense Account, as this Resolution proposes.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The best way, in my opinion, of putting to the test the proposal which is made by the Government with regard to the Old Sinking Fund is to make a short examination of what provisions they made during last year, and what they propose to make in the coming year, for the reduction of debt. There are no means of ascertaining exactly what is the net reduction in our national indebtedness during the past year, but it is quite apparent from the accounts, and from such information as has been given to the House in the course of this Debate, that the £65,000,000 nominal of the New Sinking Fund has actually been whittled down to such a small sum as to be almost negligible, that, indeed, the effect of the Sinking Fund has been destroyed by the means by which the money was raised, on the one hand, and, on the other, by issues or by guarantees entered into by the Government which have tended to depreciate the credit of the Government. This is no pedantic question of whether or not Sir Stafford Northcote was right, or whether the examples set by Chancellors 10 or 20 years ago was a good or a had example. It is a matter of real importance to every industry in this country which is dependent upon new capital for its extension and its re-equipment, and it is of prime importance to the Government as a whole in the new financial arrangements which they have to make for the conversion of the enormous debt now carried by the country.
Let me mention the first subject first. If this fund is large and is operative, and if what is known as the Baldwin Sinking Fund is in full operation and is not neutralised on the other side, the natural effect last year would have been to reduce our national indebtedness by a net sum of £05,000,000—I mean £65,000,000 cash; it might have been a great deal more than£65,000,000 nominally. The repayment of that £65,000,000 would have set free some 865,000,000, held mostly in this country, a little of it abroad, perhaps, for investment in other ways and in other forms. Some of it would probably have sought new gilt-edged securities; moneys that are held in trust obviously go in that direction. A considerable amount would have been set free for the prior charges of industrial concerns. Railways would
have had a larger field of investment money into which to dip for their new loans. Big industries which were floating debenture charges or preference stocks would have had something, within the limit of that £65,,000,000, available for their purposes. To that extent it would have been of direct benefit to industry, because of the freeing of the capital which is now locked up in Government securities.
Then it would have had a further effect. The next effect would have been that it would have tended to bring down the current rate of interest. In my view there is no benefit which the Government could confer upon the country which would have been greater than an all-round reduction in the rate of interest of gilt-edged securities. That would affect not only Government stock but corporation stock; they would have been able to borrow on even better terms than they can at the present time, and in the case of some great corporations the terms are even better than those of the Government. It would have lowered the rate of interest, or have tended to lower the rate of interest, on all the borrowings of the great concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friends in the Labour party will know that the best way of reducing the power of capital is to reduce the interest which you pay for the use of that capital, and by reducing capital theoretically it would practically have had the effect of giving the industries of this country a better chance of keeping their heads above water. It, therefore, becomes a practical question for the industries of this country, as it certainly does for the Government in the management of our national finances.
The amount of loan which has to be redeemed this year and next year runs into some hundreds of millions, and it must be a constant preoccupation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury officials. If they are not going to substitute for the loans which are to be converted and which will mature during the next two years loans on better terms than the existing terms, it means that there will be no relief in the interest charge which has to be borne every year by the revenue of the country. If the conversions are to bring no advantage, it means that one of the main sources
of the reduction of annual expenditure will be taken away from the Government. One of the principal fields in which there might be a reduction of our annual expenditure is in the interest charges. Those interest charges cannot be reduced unless these maturities are met by the repayment, partly in cash and partly in stock, on better terms than the loans are now held in the market.
From those two prime considerations let us now proceed to an examination of how far progress was made in the last 12 months towards attaining those ends. The new Sinking Fund nominally amounted to £65,000,000, but from that, as was admitted by the Chancellor in his opening statement, we have had to provide, for the interest on Savings Certificates not otherwise provided for in the Budget, the sum of no less than £14,000,000, that is, in addition to what had already been provided for in the way of interest on the maturing of National and War Savings Certificates. Then there was during that year a sale of assets amounting roughly to £15,000,000. These various assets were purchased out of loan moneys, and when they were sold the proceeds ought, in strict propriety, to have been used for the repayment of those loans. Indeed, the proceeds of those assets should have been nothing more or less than an addition to the Sinking Fund. Instead of that, the proceeds were used for the ordinary purposes of annual expenditure. Then there is the notorious transfer of £12,000,000 from the Road Fund balance and the surplus of £4,500,000 or £5,000,000 which was appropriated. There is also to be deducted from this sum of £65,000,000 the amount of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer deprived himself in the current and future years by his Schedule A tax amendment of last year. By providing fur the payment of the whole amount in the month of January there was, of course, no payment to be made in the month of July, and the effect of having taken that amount from the taxpayer early in the year—if you assess the value of that in its capital proportion and the interest chargeable upon it—that means that there is an addition of no less than £8,500,000 to indebtedness. Indeed, it is not an effective reduction of debt, but exactly the opposite, being an effective addition to debt.
Then there is the capital portion of the payments to America, which comes to no less than £5,000,000. That is accounted for in the national accounts. At the very time when we are receiving payment from our old Allies—payment of capital in repayment of debt—and that capital repayment by them goes into the revenue account, our payment to the United States of £5,000,000 is regarded as a repayment of capital. What is justifiable in the one case is justifiable in the other. If it is necessary to point out in the national accounts that £5,000,000 is devoted to the repayment of capital in the case of the United States debt, it would be equally correct bookkeeping to provide that the capital repayments from our Allies to ourselves should also be regarded as partially a capital repayment, and not taken as though it were simply the payment of interest and nothing more. The best way of dealing with that would have been to set off the capital repayment on one side against the capital in repayment on the other. I think that if we were to analyse the Allied payments we should find that the repayment of capital in respect of their loans comes to almost identically the same sum, within, perhaps, 2100,000 or £200,000, of the capital repayment to the United States.
Finally, in last year's accounts there was the repayment of the Kenya and Palestine loans. Those have both been taken into the revenue account, whereas they ought to have been dealt with as repayment of loans. To deal with them as revenue when they are nothing more or less than the repayment of loans has the natural effect of reducing the effectiveness of the new Sinking Fund by the creation, or what is nothing more or less than the augmentation, of a deficit. What do those sums come to in total? They come to a total deduction of £64,000,000 from the £65,000,000. There are a number of other questionable items which one might have added, but I do not propose to include them, because they are debatable. Those I have specified are not debatable; they are actual facts about which there is no dispute. We might have taken into account the new guarantees, the trade facility guarantees. Those moneys could never have been borrowed at their present rate of interest but for the fact that there was
the guarantee of the Government behind them. There has been an enormous addition to the Local Loans 3 per cents. The Government may plead they have little or no control, but, as far as the market for capital is concerned, as far as the City is concerned, as far as industry is concerned, it makes no difference whether it is Local Loans Stock which is issued, or a new issue of Consols. It makes no difference whatever. It takes out of the market an equivalent sum of capital which is available for gilt-edged investments. The only way the Government can possibly achieve either the reduction of their Debt or the conversion of their Debt is to see to it that their demands on the market for gilt-edged investments are very much less than the amount of money clamouring for investment, and to that extent the Sinking Fund would have been the most potent influence in the money market during the last 12 months and in the year to come.
I turn from the year which has just closed to look at the provision made for the coming year, 1928–29. The provision for the coming year is to be on the Northcote basis. The sum of £355,000,000 is to be provided for the service of the Debt and the reduction of Debt. If the interest charged is large, the margin left for the reduction of Debt will he small; if the interest charged is small, the margin for the reduction of Debt will be large. That, roughly, is the principle on which it is to be worked, but with £355,000,000, the sum fixed by the Government, the nominal Sinking Fund will actually be much less than even the smallest figure of the Baldwin Sinking Fund in the past. It cannot reach £50,000,000, it is impossible that it should do that, and unless Treasury bills are floated at an extremely cheap rate, a good deal cheaper than is anticipated by any of the experts, it is very doubtful whether the new Sinking Fund will come to much over £40,000,000 nominal for the coming year. If £40,000,000 be the correct figure in the coming year, we have also to allow for the insufficient budgeting for the provision of interest, which is a considerable figure, no less than £24,000,000.
I hope the House will not think it improper that I should go info this figure by figure, but I want to build up the case, and I know the representatives of
the Government will appreciate that I am doing it fairly, without taking ultra-controversial points. Let us see how the budgeting for next year has been done. In 1927 we spent on ordinary interest £299,000,000. The Savings Certificates' interest on repayment came to £15,000,000. That brings the total up to £314,000,000. Then there were the Savings Certificates with accrued interest in them, which was not provided for, £14,000,000, which makes £328,000,000. The provision for this year, if it is to be anything within the figure I foresee, will not be more than £304,000,000, so that there is a short fall of £24,000,000 purely on the debt redemption account. If that be so, and if there be again taken £4,500,000 from the Road Fund; if the capital portion of the United States debt is regarded as a capital repayment of £5,000,000; and if the sale of assets is £10,000,000; and if the currency note assets are to be taken in accordance with the Resolution which will be laid before the House this evening at £13,000,000, it means that the actual net reduction will be £56,700,000 from the nominal Sinking Fund of £65,000,000. If that be the correct figure, how strong is the reason for not tampering with the old Sinking Fund, because even the new Sinking Fund is quite inadequate and will not provide for the requirements of the year. There will remain £4,250,000 from the old Sinking Fund to help us out in the course of the year.
The Resolution provides that the old Sinking Fund for next year is to be similarly tampered with. There is a nominal surplus next year and that also is to be taken for the purposes of annual expenditure. The natural effect of that is that in the course of the next 12 months so far from there being an appreciation in Government credit it will remain absolutely stationary or it may grow worse. The Secretary of State for War and the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion asked questions with regard to the rise in Government stock, but the rise from day to day does not matter very much. There are all sorts of influences brought to bear day by day, but I think we should measure national credit over a fairly long period. I do not think we have any reason to be proud of the way in which our national credit has improved during the last four years.

Mr. ALBERY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman always take the last four years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no particular objection to taking any date which the hon. Gentleman mentions. I have taken the last four years because the Sinking Fund has not been operative during that period and I put down the stabilisation of British credit to the absence of the Sinking Fund. I am not taking that period with any political object and not because the four years synchronises with the lifetime of the present Government. I have pointed out the close connection there is between a Sinking Fund without neutralising influences and one which is constantly being reduced by Budgets which bring in to the revenue sums which should have been used for purely capital purposes.

Mr. ALBERY: When the right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Budget he compared our credit with several other countries and I thought, it was with reference to that argument that he compared our credit so unfavourably and only applied it within the last two years.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I agree that there had been a great improvement since the conclusion of the War but by the good fortune of having large surpluses which came within the period of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hillhead, and whether he wished it or not under the old Sinking Fund these surpluses went- to the reduction of debt by scores of millions. That had a marked effect. I do not know how far the hon. Member opposite would like to go back but if he tries to translate the facts I have mentioned he will see that British credit rose with great rapidity up to 1923 and from that date there has been a serious sagging and it is only within recent times that there has been any signs of a recovery, yet we have not touched the high watermark of 1923. The absence of that recovery, which has been pretty general throughout the world, is entirely due to the Sinking Fund not being made an operative influence in improving the credit of this country. I do not wish to depreciate the credit of our own country but I think we could make it much greater if we were not taking so much each year from the Sinking Fund and devoting it to annual ex-
penditure, whereas it is money which ought to have been used only for reducing the debt.
My reason for pressing this point is that I see no chance of our national credit improving or of our financial conditions becoming more favourable for British industry whatever you may do in the way of transferring burdens or protective duties. There can be no permanent recovery unless we can approach nearer to the lowest interest standard in the world instead of being the fifth or sixth in the list. I believe British credit is as good as any in the world but the money market does not look at it in that light. They look at it from the point of view that there is more and more stock available. What operates is the old law of supply and demand translated into the ordinary practice of the money market. So long as they have that impression so long will it be impossible to improve the rate of interest on which the Government raises money when it deals with the 5 per cent. War Loan. It will not be possible to deal with that subject by any ingenious contrivances and the conversion will have to be a straightforward transaction from beginning to end.
There may be some means by which £2,000,000,000 can be wiped out or converted without appealing to the market for the whole of that vast sum. We may draw other investors in and provide in that way for the repayment of some of our British investors in the enormous loan of £2,000,000,000. But unless we can arrange that whatever be the stock it is actually a much smaller sum than the gilt edged money set free by redemption on maturity you will have to continue paying at the present rate of interest. Unless we can improve our national rate of interest our accounts will become waterlogged and this will make the price of money one of the disadvantages under which we shall continue to labour. For the purpose of helping industry and improving the national credit I think this House should take every means in its power to prevent the Government reducing the Sinking Fund either old or new.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runcirnan) has approached an Amendment which relates to the old Sinking Fund with a disquisi-
tion on the delinquencies of the Government relating to the New Sinking Fund, and he has asked us to believe that last year, instead of having redeemed through the Sinking Fund something like £65,000,000 we have in fact redeemed only £1,000,000.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Net.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made last week he dealt in a similar manner with the two previous years and he showed that he was satisfied that instead of having redeemed anything we had added £93,000,0040 to our outstanding indebtedness. I think I am quoting his figure correctly. It is worth while examining what has actually been the net operation of the Sinking Fund during the four years taken by the right hon. Gentleman. There are two ways of stating the matter. You may deal with it by taking the normal amount of the new Sinking Fund and deducting from it any deficit that occurred during the years which you are reviewing and in that way exclude from consideration either the concealed Sinking Funds or the Savings Certificates. If you exclude the hidden Sinking Fund and the certificates you will find that the net reduction by the Sinking Fund during the last four years is 172.9 million pounds. That is the exact net reduction after taking into account the deficits of 1925 and 1926 amounting to £50,000,000. If you take it in the other way and take into account the old Sinking Fund the deficits and also the short payments of interest on the Savings Certificates and take credit for the hidden Sinking Fund the actual amount of net reduction caused by the operation of the Sinking Fund is 155.7 million pounds.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking in that calculation the stocks which the British Government guarantee?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The figures I have given the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt admit as being correct as I stated them but he wishes to set off against those figures the new loan created under the British Government's guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act, the Local Loans Act and the Palestine Loan and similar investments. Before I deal with that I want to deal
with the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea. He said, "Yes, but you have taken into the revenue account capital assets." We all know that it is an extremely difficult thing to define assets of this kind. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer for some years past has dealt in exactly the same way with the so-called capital assets. But if you do take them and exclude them from the revenue account it is clear that you must exclude capital liabilities which are exactly the counterpart of the capital assets which come into the national accounts. The right hon. Gentleman will remember although he did not remind us that there are enormous war terminal charges and a large annual expenditure on war pensions. Is not the liability for war pensions a capital liability arising out of the War?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I made it clear what I meant by the use of capital assets. I said that such assets as had been purchased out of Loan money when sold should be used to wipe out loans.

7.0 p.m.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman claims to have whittled down the Sinking Fund to such an extent that instead of having redeemed through the Sinking Fund something like £65,000,000 he makes out that the amount is only £1,000,000 net. It is to that kind of argument I take exception. The right hon. Gentleman said "Yes, you may have guaranteed loans under the Trade Facilities Acts. You have created new credit." If he meant by that, "You have come on the gilt-edged market and taken money which would otherwise have rendered other loans cheap," I would agree with him, but that is not what he has been saying.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is what I said last week.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying to-day or all that he was saying last week. He said that, at the same time that we have been reducing Debt by the Sinking Fund, we have been increasing Debt by the guaranteed loans. He set the one against the other, but are they comparable? Of course, they
are not comparable. The national loans should be redeemed out of the Sinking Fund, but the guaranteed loans that have been made to trading firms to electrify railways, to set up power stations, should not be redeemed out of the Sinking Fund but should be redeemed by the borrowers out of the undertakings. These loans do not create any charge whatever on the National Exchequer and there is no need whatever to redeem them out of the Sinking Fund.
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberal party in this matter, because I have an interesting little account given to me from the Liberal Yellow Book, which must have been directed to the sort of argument that he has put before this House. Indeed, his argument should properly have been addressed not to the Government, but to his colleagues on the Liberal Benches. On page 114 of the Liberal Yellow Book, referring to Government guaranteed loans, which they extol as a proper method of developing the assets of the State—indeed they think so much of them that they are going to set up a Department of State called the National Investment Board for the very purpose of developing these guaranteed loans—they say:
These arrangements would not interfere in any way with the normal operation of the Sinking Fund for the reduction and eventual extinction of the Dead-weight Debt—just as this is not now affected by the financing of the telephones or the issue of Local Loans Stock. The Dead-weight Debt would continue to be reduced each year by the amount of the Sinking Fund, and the Budget would he progressively relieved of interest charges by a corresponding amount.
The right hon. Gentleman will excuse my calling his attention to the next part, but it is important.
As regards the field of capital developments and the rate of interest, it may be true that, if we were to stop building houses and roads and power stations, the Treasury, finding fewer competitors in the market (apart from overseas borrowers), might be able to borrow a little more cheaply. But a project of lowering the rate of interest by suspension so far as possible of new capital improvements—in fact, by stopping up the outlets and main purposes of our savings—would he distinctly misguided. Put directly, perhaps, no one would uphold such a policy. Nevertheless, it lurks un-recognised behind much opposition to schemes of national development.
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has hardly been conscious of what was lurking behind his opposition.
He has pointed out again to-day that the credit of this country has not increased so quickly as the credit, of other countries in recent years, and he puts that down to the non-effectiveness of the Sinking Fund. I am not prepared to admit that it is due to the non-effectiveness of the Sinking Fund. Anybody who contemplates the difficulties under which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been labouring these last few years, cannot help feeling a glow of satisfaction that, notwithstanding the difficulties, the credit of the country is as good as it is. Since March, 1925, the Debt which has matured for payment has amounted to £1,014,000,000, and the whole of that debt has been cared for; part of it has been repaid in cash and part of it by conversions, except a sum of £142,000,000 which is now outstanding and is to 'be dealt with this year.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Very unfavourable conversions.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not agree with the hon. Member. The market conditions have been in every case the governing factor. You cannot get money cheaper than it is. In a conversion, you are dependent upon the market, and, when you have to come for such large sums in successive years, the surprise—if surprise there be at all—is that you have succeeded with so little derangement of the country's finances in making the conversions in the way that they have been made. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly called attention to the desirability of cheap money being available for trade. During that period of four years some £450,000,000 of securities have been placed on the London market on behalf of the Dominions, the Colonies, and foreign countries. That is a fairly large sum for the years during which all those other operations have been carried through. That money has, of course, been useful to this country. It has stimulated our export trade, and, without it, I have no doubt unemployment would have been worse.
What is the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman? That the Sinking Fund has not been effective, has not been large enough. That is his complaint; it
must be. A week ago he called attention to the wonderful effects that £5,000,000 of American money had had on the Funding Loan, and he said, "If only you had £50,000,000, what an effect it would have had! How much higher your public securities would have stood! How much lower interest you would have had to pay to-day!" Are the Government entirely to blame for this, for the events of 1926 costing the Exchequer one way or another £80,000,000? All that is not a matter for which the Government can be blamed, and if that amount had been in hand it would have been better than the 50,000,000, and would probably have had a better effect upon the price of securities.
Let me come to the immediate Amendment that is before the House. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who moved it, asked whether this raid on the Old Sinking Fund was to be considered its death knell and whether in future there was to be no Old Sinking Fund. The Chancellor explained exactly what was being done over the Old Sinking Fund. The sum of;£4,260,000 is being carried from the Old Sinking Fund to a suspense account, something to be dealt with by future legislation of this House. The next year, it cannot be considered as a raid, because the money is being accumulated, £14,000,000, for the very purpose of being carried into the suspense account, and that suspense account, together with the revenue that is raised year by year, is intended, as the Chancellor said, to finance the plan to relieve the rates. The Fund is being accumulated in advance for the purpose of relief of the rates, and really the House has to come to a decision. Does it want the rating plan, in which case it has got to finance the rating plan, or—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: At the proper time.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is there any harm in looking in advance and forming a Reserve Fund for a liability that you know is going to fall upon you? That money in the meanwhile will not be wasted. It will be in the Reserve Fund. It will be earning income for the Government. It will not be wasted, and it will be ready to be applied when it is required, when this House has legislated. It cannot be applied before. This
House in legislating will direct the final destination of that Suspense Fund. The House has to snake up its mind. Does it want the plan, in which case it will have to effect the financing of the plan. If the House is not prepared to accept the proposition to finance the plan by last year's surplus of £4,200,000 and this year's provision being put to a suspense account, then it has got to face some other means of raising the money, and that means some other form of taxation. I have no hesitation in asking the House to reject this Amendment because I believe the House is in favour of the plan.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I want to express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able to be here to-day to take part in this very important Debate, but I am glad to say that the Treasury Bench has been reinforced since last night. One might safely assume that some S.O.S. has been broadcast in the Government Departments and the British Army has come to the rescue. This discussion has so far wandered rather a field from the somewhat narrow point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), I would not for a moment suggest that there has been any collusion between the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and the Secretary of State for War. It is rather an evidence of the foresight of the right hon. Gentleman that he should have come down to the Debate this afternoon with voluminous typewritten sheets which were singularly applicable as replies to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The point of my hon. Friend's Amendment is a very narrow one. It is asking the House of Commons not to agree to a Resolution which in effect means the abolition of the Old Sinking Fund. I need hardly remind the House that the Old Sinking Fund means that the Budget surpluses shall be devoted to the purposes of Debt reduction. There have been occasions—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his Budget speech, flourished a large sheet of paper on which he said he had a list of them—on which the Sinking Fund has been raided. The general practice has been that, if a surplus did accrue, or had
accrued at the end of the financial year, it should be devoted to the purpose of Debt reduction. The Resolution which we are now asked to approve would give to the Treasury or to the Exchequer in future the right to dispose of the surplus in any way that they might think fit and, therefore, this Resolution is in effect, to use the expression used by the Secretary of State for War, an authority to the Exchequer in future to raid the Sinking Fund.
I think it will not be out of order on this Resolution to say a word or two about the controversy between the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea. I am not going into all the detailed figures given by the right hon. Gentleman—when figures are thrown across the Floor of the House in such a quarrel, it is quite impossible at the moment to appreciate their true significance—but there is one single figure bearing on this matter which cannot be disputed and which is very easily understood. Three years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated £50,000,000 to the Sinking Fund. In the following year he allocated £60,000,000, and last year he allocated £65,000,000. We had, during those three years, a deficit amounting to £50,000,000, and, therefore, it is a very simple sum in arithmetic to arrive at the conclusion that the Statutory Sinking Fund, or what the right hon. Gentleman called the Baldwin Sinking Fund, of £50,000,000 a year, has not been paid during the last three years. As a matter of fact, only an average of 43,000,000 a year has been paid. That is a raid on the Sinking Fund, and the purpose of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to prevent practices of that sort in future.
Reference has already been made to a proposal which is to come into operation next year, that is to say, the provision of a fixed debt charge. I am speaking from memory—I was not at all prepared to speak in this Debate—but, if my memory serves me rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided in this year's Budget £304,000,000 for the purpose of interest and cost of debt management, and £65,000,000 for the Sinking Fund, that is to say, £369,000,000 altogether. He apparently feels certain that what happened last year will not happen
this year, and is providing only £304,000,000 for interest and service of the debt. In each of the last two years, his estimate of interest on debt has been far short of what the interest has actually amounted to and, therefore, it is very reasonable, although I am never dogmatic—I think the House will at least give me that credit—in expressing an opinion as to what may be the result of estimates made often 18 months before the expenditure fully matures, it does seem likely, judging by the experience of the last two years, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year is not providing for a Sinking Fund of £65,000,000. Next year it is proposed to provide a, fixed debt charge of £355,000,000, and there is a very close connection, as I shall show in a minute, between that and the Resolution which is now before us. The Statutory Sinking Fund is £50,000,000, and £50,000,000 deducted from £355,000,000 only leaves £305,000,000 for the debt services; but there is another factor to be taken into account. I do no'-, want to raise this now, beyond saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is providing for the accrued interest on the National Savings Certificates. I do not understand it at all; I want to ask for information on it later. As far as I can see, he is providing, in that fixed debt charge, less than was provided for under the Baldwin Sinking Fund. The accruing interest upon the Nationd Savings Certificates may be £20,000,000 a year. He is only providing £50,000,000 a year for the whole of the Sinking Fund payment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated that there was a specific Sinking Fund requiring, I think, £51,200,000 a year.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The average was £50,250,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Why should the right hon. Gentleman interrupt me about a matter of half a million? My point is not affected in the least. My point is that the specific Sinking Fund charge is more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is providing altogether for Sinking Fund, for debt which has not a specific Sinking Fund attached to it, and something like £20,000,000 a year for the accruing interest upon the National Savings Certificates. Therefore, if you
add these three or four items together, you are not going to get, under this new fixed debt charge, much more than. £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year for Sinking Fund.
It is all the more important that we should not approve the Resolution now before the House because, if times become more prosperous, there may be Budget surpluses, and they, under the old Sinking Fund, would go to the help of a, Statutory Sinking Fund which was not sufficient for the purpose. That, I think, is a very strong reason why the House should not adopt this Resolution. I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, and I think the point had already been made by my right hon. Friend, as to the bad effect which was created in the money market by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to debt reduction. This is not the occasion to enter fully into this question, and, therefore, I simply confine myself to saying that I endorse, with all the force I have at my command, what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea as to the importance of maintaining a large Sinking Fund. The effect of that upon the National credit cannot be exaggerated, and, in view of the appalling problem—I do not care what party is in office, the seriousness of the problem of the conversion of huge blocks of War Debt during the next few years cannot be contested—the paramount duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be thinking night and day of the ways and means by which he can improve the national credit; and the most effective way in which he can do that is to maintain a large Sinking Fund.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I do not think that anyone in any quarter of the House will quarrel with the concluding words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I believe that in all quarters of the House great importance is attached to the argument on which that speech was based. I think we may also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for calling attention to the point raised by this Resolution and by the Amendment. Perhaps I might just call the attention of the House to the actual
words of the Resolution, which are follows:
That the old Sinking Fund for the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, and the 31st day of March 1929, shall, instead of being issued to tie National Debt Commissioners, be carried to a suspense account for the purpose of being subsequently applied in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine.
I frankly confess that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), and supported in a speech of great power by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), places me in a, considerable dilemma. With a great part of the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley I cordially agree, but I believe that the central conception embodied in the Budget this year is a great and fruitful conception, and I believe that hardly any sacrifice—I want to be precise—hardly any sacrifice of financial principle which may be involved in this Resolution is too heavy a price to pay for it.
I frankly admit that the Budget does offer, as our Debate this afternoon has shown, a very tempting target for criticism. Some of the shafts of criticism have already found their mark, and in this Amendment we have another shaft of criticism. I do not know whether my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are going to exhibit, with regard to this Amendment, the same sensibility to criticism which they exhibited in regard to previous Amendments which they have accepted. I do not know whether they are going, in this matter also, to follow what the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as the guidance of the House of Commons, but, speaking for myself, I would only say this, that I find it exceedingly difficult to resist the economic arguments put forward by the hon. Memfor Keighley and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea. I confess that. I hardly ever listen to the right hon. Gentleman without falling a victim to that rare combination of cogency of reasoning and lucidity of exposition of which he is so great a master. Those arguments would be true if we were considering the Amendment in isolation.
There are two right hon. Members of t his House whose absence this afternoon I greatly regret. I am riot referring to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though we all regret his absence, but I should particularly have liked to hear, in connection with this Amendment, an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for my recollection is pretty clear that in 1912, when he proposed his Budget of that year, he proposed to do precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do in the Budget of this year, that is to say, he proposed to hold in suspense what he then described as the largest realised surplus on record, a surplus of £6,500,000. That surplus was to be held temporarily in suspense, without prejudging what would be done with any part of it, with a view to meeting the contingencies which might arise from the coal strike of 1912, from the under-expenditure of the Admiralty in the year then expiring, and the threatened expansion of the German naval programme. There are Members of the House to-day who will remember that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was stoutly resisted on orthodox financial grounds by a right hon. Friend of mine the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend very much for that reason. I venture to recall to the remembrance of the House two sentences which my right hon. Friend then used:
I deplore and I blame the choice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made of the way to treat the realised surplus of this year. I beg him to remember that one of the elements of our strength is our reserves for use in such emergency, and that he is the particular guardian of those reserves. I beg him even now, at this late hour, to show some sense of his responsibility in that respect and to reconsider the proposal which was laid before the Committee to take away the whole of the realised surplus from its proper and legal application to the redemption of debt.
The words which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham addressed to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I would address this afternoon to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for no words of mine could possibly add to the force—I was almost going to say to the solemnity—of that appeal. I do not know whether' it is discreet—possibly it is the height of indiscretion—to ask whether those arguments which fell from my right hon.
Friend in 1912 were addressed to his colleague the present Chancellor of the Exchequer before this Budget was opened. If those words were addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and addressed to him in vain, it would be a great consolation to some of us who are rather perturbed in the financial conscience by this particular proposal, to know the grounds on which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham was led to acquiesce in what I can describe only as an outrage upon financial propriety. I will make this frank confession to the House: I am myself led to acquiesce in that outrage simply and solely because I do not want by any defection on a point of detail, however important, to weaken my support of a Budget which I regard as a great effort in constructive statesmanship.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure we have all followed with interest the display of the rival arguments of financial experts. I wish to refer first of all to the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). With the praise that has been showered upon him for the lucidity of that speech. I entirely agree, but I am not in agreement with many of the suggestions that he made in the course of his speech. Before dealing with the speech I would make one general observation. We have heard from all quarters of the House a great deal about the improved credit of the country. It may be true that nationally we are financially better, but I beg to remind the House that the credit of the majority of the people of this country was never so low as it is in 1927. It is a remarkable contrast that we should have begun this week discussing the problem of unemployment and how we can find bread for a million workers and their dependants, and that for the remainder of the week we are devoting ourselves to a learned discussion of high finance. The right hon. Member for West Swansea, in the course of a very able speech, submitted to the Members occupying these benches that this mysterious manipulation of finance was of first-class importance to the working classes of this country. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to back up that statement with these arguments: He said that if you release millions of money that is now held by the Government and set it free for industrial pur-
poses, you give an impetus to production, you create more employment, and you will have a tendency to increase the wages of the workers.
I submit that that is an economic argument that might have been applicable to the middle of the 19th century but is not applicable to the conditions of to-day. Industry is not withering to-day because of a shortage of capital. I do not know any industry of any consequence that can be run at a profit in this country that is not really over-capitalised at the moment. Without any knowledge of what is called "the City," I am sure that if an hon. Member in any part of the House can indicate to the wealth owners of this country that a greater return on their surplus wealth is to be found by supplying the needs in capital of a particular industry, the necessary capital will be forthcoming. As a matter of fact I think I would have no difficulty in proving to an unbiased audience that industry is suffering largely from over-capitalisation.
The next point made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea, or attempted to be made, was that the setting free of this £65,000,000 would lead to a reduction in the rate of interest and thereby ease the burden on the workers of the country. In reply to that I want to say two things. The first is that we have long ago passed the day when the banks of this country would allow the value of the money which they control to be reduced by the release of £65,000,000 now held under Government control. It was to prevent these things that the banks amalgamated. It is in order to regulate the price and the flow of money and the output of production that the great financial combines of this country have been brought into existence. But then I am more interested in the other suggestion made under this heading, namely, that if the rate of interest were reduced the burden on the working classes, who have to provide the interest, would be reduced, and that that reduction in burden would be expressed in a raising of the standard of living of the workers.
That contention is entirely due to a misunderstanding of how wages are fixed to-day. Employers do not sit down on a Saturday afternoon and estimate the amount of money which they have paid for the week, putting aside the on-cost charges and saying, "So much for inter-
est and so much for this and so much for that, and now there is so much left, and because the rate of interest is reduced there is more left than there was before the reduction took place." Wages are fixed by the law of supply and demand applied to the labour of this country. The wages of the workers are not fixed by the rate of interest, but by the numbers of workers available and the number of jobs available. In these days, when we are baffled by the problem of unemployment, to suggest that a reduction in the rate of interest is going in the slightest degree to interfere with that law in the fixing of wages, is playing with the intelligence of the workers of the country.
The third point is this, though I am not sure that it is closely connected with the speech of the right hon. Member for West Swansea. The £65,000,000 which we are discussing is at present under Government control. The nation regulates the return which will be received by the owner of that sum for its investment. But when you release it from Government control you set it free to be invested elsewhere, and I would be very much surprised, leaving out of account the amount that belongs to trust funds, if the owners of it would be content to put it into industry or commerce at the rate at which they have lent it to the nation. I go further and submit to my hon. Friends that we should get under Government control as much as possible of the wealth and capital of the country. We may come into power in a few years from now. We want capital to finance our Socialist proposals. The more capital we have under Government control the greater facility will there be for the establishment of the order of society which we hope to build in substitution for the present one. Therefore, I want to impress on my own friends here that they should weigh very carefully every proposal that aims at freeing from Government control the wealth of this country. Keep it there even at this 5 per cent. because even at 5 per cent. or 4½ per cent. we shall be able to use it more profitably than we could hope to use the equivalent amount of money if we had to go into the market under a Labour Government and seek in a constitutional way from the owners of wealth the capital necessary to finance our scheme.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I shall not take up time for long, because the last speaker has nearly made me change my mind in deciding how I would treat this subject. I have been in agreement with almost everything that has been said by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and other speakers. I think that the suspension of the Old Sinking Fund is the most unwise thing that I could imagine any Government would have done, when we are all looking to the Government to raise the credit of this country—the Government credit and the credit of the country generally—and when we are looking for wisdom and for proper treatment of the nation's financial affairs. The Amendment deals only with the Old Sinking Fund. Many of the speeches have wandered from the Amendment and treated of the general credit of the country. I have not, like most of the Members of the Liberal party and the Secretary of State for War, had the advantage of reading the yellow literature which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but I cannot imagine anything much more vicious than the chapter which he quoted from the Liberal Yellow Book. It is against all the precepts I have heard laid down in the House and against all the rules that financiers have advocated in order to restore credit. Before the War, when the Stafford Northcote Sinking Fund was working, Budgets were supposed to be, and in fact turned out to be, very accurate statements of what was expected to be the revenue and the expenditure of the country. In the War no Budget existed. No one attempted to make any estimate of expenditure and revenue. Even since the War I do not think any Chancellor, I do not think the Inland Revenue or the Treasury have attempted to say a Budget when it is brought in is anything more than a series of very vague guesses as to what will happen. The world has not settled down since the War and with real peace, within reasonableness, you will expect to know how things will turn out.
We have had these capital assets referred to. Sometimes they have fetched money and sometimes they have proved to be worthless. It has been the essence of all budgeting since the War that, while exercising due care, the Chancellor should be prepared to find all his calculations
were wrong, and so they have turned out to be. Estimates have been made of the revenue coming in and the surpluses have been, whether real or not, out of all proportion to any surplus ever imagined before the War. What we are doing now is to say when the revenue for the year is brought in, anything over and above what we budgeted for is not to be used to pay off debt. But if we made a mistake, if China caused the expenditure to increase, or if Egypt or some other country were to cause an increase of expenditure, there would be no surplus at the end of the year, there would be a deficit and there would be nothing with which to pay off debt. Surely it is necessary now more than ever, if you get a realised surplus, that it should go to the Sinking Fund. It should go to paying off the huge capital debt, because it is clear if these estimates are inaccurate, if the balance is on the other side, not only will there not be a surplus but there will be a severe deficit, and the so-called Stafford-Northcote Sinking Fund will not materialise at all in that year. There will he no clear surplus and no debt paid off, even without dearer money, which of itself might upset all the Chancellor's calculations.
I do not think the reception in financial circles of the Budget was at all unfavourable. The Chancellor, with the help of his associates on the Front Bench, was endeavouring to cure some of the great evils existing in the country by a bold plan, but honestly those having a better understanding of finance should view this suspension of the Old Sinking Fund as a really bad step and one that is totally unnecessary, at any rate this year. The right hon. Gentleman has said this £4,000,000 is a very small matter. If so, why suspend the Sinking Fund this year for a paltry £4,000,0001 Why break one of the most important rules of finance for £4,000,0001 I will not touch on the more general subject of our credit and repayment of debt, because I dealt with that last year, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea has fully covered it. I agree with all he says on that. This question of the suspension of the Sinking Fund is in itself more important in keeping our credit good than anything that has been done for many years.

Mr. GILLETT: I think, possibly, the Secretary of State for War, when he referred to the large amount of money that had been lent by the London money market during the last year or two, was probably, although he was not referring to it in that way, to some extent giving an answer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), because I cannot but help thinking that the continual drain on capital for the purposes of our Dominions, and many investments of high standing, must have come into competition with the gilt-edged market, and he has not perhaps made sufficient allowance for that in the arguments he has adduced to-day as well as the other day. I believe in the whole of the discussions on this Budget we fail sufficiently to appreciate the enormous change that is taking place in the money markets of the world and how much more international they are to-day than they were before the War, and we do not make sufficient allowance for these international influences which affect even the price of our stocks. It is a very dangerous argument to try to support a political line by arguing as to where the stocks are standing, because if the stream of money we see beginning to come from New York to the London Money Market should continue, that may have an effect on our stocks which has nothing to do with the Government that may be in office in the next two or three years. On the other hand, if it should not fructify any further, that might have an effect in the opposite direction. Therefore any hon. Member who tries to argue politically has to be exceedingly careful in regard to the arguments he uses.
Coming to the exact point before us, there was in the columns of the "Times" the other day a discussion upon the principles on which our accounts should be given. There was a letter pointing out, in reply to someone who wanted to publish the accounts on what were called commercial lines, that the accounts of the nation were always kept on a cash basis. Of course a certain allowance has to be made for repayment of loans for certain kinds of public work. The theory always is that the Chancellor only raises the money he actually wants to spend for definite purposes in the year with which he is concerned. I understand that is the great principle of finance. I have
tried to remember any incident that is exactly similar to the Chancellor's idea of beginning to build up a fund out of which he is going to help to relieve rates by raising the money in advance. Although a small tax has often been imposed which will be much larger by the time the expense comes in the following year, the Chancellor has laid down the principle that he is going to impose taxation this year in order to meet liabilities which are coming upon him next year, and that is breaking this principle of only raising the cash he wants for the year in which he is going to spend it. You can easily see how this principle of applying the money to a Sinking Fund has come into existence. It is intended that the Chancellor should get no advantage from any mistake he may make by estimating for too large a sum, and on that account it has always been insisted that the money should be put into the Sinking Fund. It has, of course, the advantage of helping the debt, but I do not believe that is the main underlying principle. I believe the principle was that the Chancellor had really made a mistake and he was not to benefit from it. On these lines the finance of the country has been carried on, and that has always been considered the orthodox view.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), and I think the position he has taken up is the only consistent one. As for the argument of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), I think he will live to regret it. I can see the Labour party in office when the rigid hand of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer may not be present, and any Socialist Member could justify raiding the Sinking Fund on the speech of the hon. Member for York. He said he so approved the rating scheme of the Government that he felt he was justified in setting aside his financial principles for this purpose. Any Member who supports any Socialist or reform scheme will now be able to justify raiding the Sinking Fund. The action of the Conservative party to-day will have made it absolutely impossible for them to object to any Labour Chancellor raiding the Sinking Fund on the lines the present Chancellor is suggesting to us. The hon. Member for the City of London is giving
much sounder financial advice, from their standpoint, than they know. There was a brief interval when the Labour Government was in office, and the Secretary of State for War retired and became editor of a financial paper. I can well understand, if the Labour Chancellor had brought in a proposal of this kind, the article that would have been written by the right hon. Gentleman. He is supporting this plan tonight. If any Labour Chancellor had suggested that the Sinking Fund should be raided, words would not have been strong enough to condemn the Labour party. To-day, of course, everything can be justified, so it can be justified by any other party at any other time. I view this Division with a certain cynical amusement when I think of hon. Members opposite, whose views really are those of the hon. Member for the City of London, though they dare not express them. They are going into the Lobby to make a precedent which one day they will probably very bitterly regret.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I object to the suspension of the old Sinking Fund for two reasons. First of all, I hold that for the purpose of financing the proposed constructive portions of the present Budget it is unnecessary to adopt a policy of that kind, and, secondly, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettlesten (Mr. Wheatley) in that I think it very desirable, from the point of view of a future Labour Government and from the point of view of Socialism, that we should give an eye not only to our national but to our international credit.
8.0 p.m.
When we come to the financial side of the proposal for which we stand, and for which we hope some day to get the sanction of the country, we shall be face to face with this question of the credit of the nation in relation to the rest of the world, and for that reason as well as for the other reasons I oppose the raid upon the Sinking Fund. I rise mainly to deal with the point of view which has been again put before the House, and which is constantly being put before the House by Liberals and Conservatives, a point of view which I consider economically unsound, and which is always put forward to justify saving the taxation of the country at the expense of the poor of the country. Whenever it is a ques-
tion of expenditure upon social services, or constructive legislation designed to raise the status of the life of the people, we are always told by the financiers of both the other parties that we are a poor nation, that we cannot afford this expenditure, and that, if we tax the people of the country who are the investing public, we shall raise the price of money and there will be less employment. I have used certain figures more than once in this House, and I do not wish to repeat them unduly, but I consider it is very necessary to put the point of view that the nation is not poor and is not short of capital. It is not a question of capital; it is a question of trade. If the people have the wherewithal to buy goods, the goods will be purchased. Capital is sluggish, no doubt, and money is dear, but that is not because there are not resources of wealth in the country but because of the depression in trade and the lack of opportunity on the part of the people to purchase the goods which will make trade prosperous.
I want to answer these capitalistic financiers. I may be wrong, because I am not an expert in finance, but I know the difference between two and four and between five and six, and the facts seem very obvious. The national income is what we have to consider when we are dealing with taxation. The ratio of taxation to national income is no higher than it has ever been during the last century. It is, indeed, a little lower than it was 100 years ago. The national income is £4.000,000,000. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) puts it at that figure, and Sir Josiah Stamp puts it at slightly over that. Out of that, we have a national taxation of about £820,000,000. You have local rating, which is a far bigger burden directly on industry than taxation, amounting to £180.000,000. Then there is the amount which is saved by the nation for the purpose of investment and which is not 1/16th of the national income. There is £250,000,000 put back into industry by the investing public. In round figures, you have £200,000,000 put into foreign investments which may or may not be necessary. It is argued that it is a desirable thing that some of the surplus wealth should go into foreign investments. Those sums together total £1,450,000,000 of the national
income of £4,000,000,000 and there is a balance of £2,550,000,000 available for free expenditure. If that wealth were divided equally among the people—I am not suggesting that is a desirable thing; it certainly is not Socialism—but, for the sake of argument, if you divided it equally among the whole population, you would have an income for every family of over £6 a week.
The average income per family of the working class is only about one-fifth of that. You have £2,000,000,000 divided between 2,500,000 of the population and the remainder divided between the remainder of the population. Yet, with all that vast surplus of wealth, the economists and financiers come to the House of Commons and tell us that the reason why working people are unemployed is that there is not sufficient capital or sufficient cheap capital available for investment in industry and trade. That is not the trouble; the trouble is the poverty of the people. You will not raise the status of the people by objecting to the redistribution of the national income and reasonable taxation for social services. I have never had these figures dealt with or had the argument answered. I have always contended, and Socialists always contend, that the reason why there is bad trade and unemployment is not because the capital is not there ready if there is a chance of profit, but because the people do not get sufficient to find the wealth which they are capable of producing. This is not a poor nation at all. Although I agree that it is bad financial' policy to suspend this Old Sinking Fund, yet, for the reasons I have given, I reject false economics, as I regard them, that are always put forward by Tories and Liberals and which are especially aimed at the idea that the workers have a right to their share in the national income.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I can only look at a question of this kind from the point of view of an observer and of one who has tried to understand a little of the progress of our social organisation. I do not understand what is meant by the credit of the country. It stood pretty high even during the worst years of the War, and for the last 100 years it has stood fairly well. Before 1914, the National Debt was much lower than it is now, and the credit of the country was considered fairly good; but I do not believe that the country was better then
than it is now. I do not believe that the Debt in 1914 or the Debt now is to be considered as having much bearing on our situation. In 1914, the average working class wage was about 24s. a week. The Debt is big now, far bigger in proportion to our wealth production than was the case in 1914; but still the income of the working classes is just about what it was 14 years ago. So far as real wages are concerned, little or nothing has been altered.
The Yellow Book of the Liberals tells us that there is at the present moment a re-investment of fresh capital of about 2 per cent. of the wealth of the country which is £500,000,000 a year. That includes foreign investments. If £500,000,000 is 2 per cent. of the national capital then the national capital is £25,000,000,000. I suppose that capital includes the £8,000,000,000 of Debt we are now discussing. That is a curious thing. From the point of view of the people who have to find the interest, this is Debt; but, from the point of view of the man who receives the interest, this Debt is wealth. It is a better kind of wealth than houses or building or business. No fire insurance is needed; there is no depreciation, and you do not need to worry about it. You simply hold the Debt, and wealth pours in on you because you hold it. There is something radically wrong about a state of affairs like that. A manufacturer getting 5 per cent. or 7½per cent. out of a business has to worry about maintaining his business and his output. He has to pay interest on depreciation and insure against loss. But, if the nation is in my debt and my wealth consists of Debt, I am exceedingly well off and my family can live for generations untold on what is Debt to you but wealth to me. What a contradiction in terms!
I have yet to receive proof that there is any real scarcity of wealth in this country available for investment. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) does not believe so anyhow. He has just floated a company of an international character for the purpose of financing businesses. He believes that wherever a business shows any sign of giving any return whatever there will be no lack of capital. He has told us very frankly that he has no preferences about the matter at all. It can either be here or it can be abroad. It can either finance
industry in this country or our competitors abroad. It can finance businesses abroad, where the workers have low standards of living and receive low wages, businesses which compete with our own people here. It does not matter, because it is finance. It will show a return. I believe, as my hon. Friend has said, that capital may be sluggish at 5 per cent., but it is lively at 7½ per cent., at 10 per cent. it goes mad, while at 15 per cent. it will go to war. This jargon leaves me quite cold. Here we are with all this wonderful and potential power. While we are said to be staggering along under great financial difficulties, the potential horse-power, as far as the wealth of the country is concerned, has more than doubled since 1907 according to the Balfour Report on Industrial Efficiency. They give the figures after a great deal of investigation, and they tell us that our mechanical power has more than doubled in the last 20 years.
Here is another remarkable factor. Immediately after the War we had a very much bigger Debt than we have now. I believe it was considerably higher at that time. We have reduced it. The Debt has been reduced by the application of Sinking Fund, and we are told that if this process continues the condition of the masses of the people will improve. But it is a curious fact that as the Debt has decreased wages have decreased and standards have come down. The Debt has become less and wages have become less. While we paid off £60,000,000 odd of our liabilities last year, the "Labour Gazette" says that for the first three months of this year there was a decrease at the rate of £5,250,000 per annum in the wages of a few hundred thousand working people. Thus, the smaller the Debt the position of the working class becomes worse as far as wages are concerned. The whole thing is a contradiction in terms.
I do not believe your jargon. I think it is jargon invented to blind the people and keep them in subjection. This is treated as a scientific thing, but I think that at the bottom the explanation is a simple one, namely, that the people of this country are poor because they are robbed, and they are robbed because of the mechanism of finance we continually hear so much about in this House. This problem and this robbery continues. I do not say that it is in the power of any
single individual to stop it, but the whole organisation is wrong. The point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington West (Mr. Montague) is one with which I entirely agree. The social organisation is wrong, and it must be considered wrong when you have, on the one hand, an increase of power and investment wealth as far as the relative few are concerned, and, on the other hand, the great mass of people staggering along under the burden of poverty, which is becoming more intolerable as the years go by. Side by side with that poverty is an increase of financial power, the doubling of our mechanical power, the increase of our scientific power, and it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to find a solution of the problem. Let every man in this House say, if he sees a means of doing it, that he will favour the raising of the standards of living of our people. It would be better if we tried to conceive some method whereby our vast power, our knowledge of the wonderful powers we control, could be organised on a scientific basis so as to bring, not poverty to one class or to another class, but plenty to every class. I think that that could be done if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would set about utilising his chances to the best of his ability.

Mr. TOWNEND: I should not have risen but for the fact that certain questions have been asked of the Minister in charge of this particular item, and no reply has as yet been forthcoming. Certain points were submitted to the Minister in charge, and they were points which were not only submitted from these

benches but from below the Gangway, and they were points which received almost unanimous support and approval from every speaker who has followed the discussion from its commencement, with the exception of the Secretary of State for War. It was pointed out even by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who placed his conscience quite obviously in the possession of his party for the time being, what a tremendous wrench he would have to undergo, in the hope, no doubt, that he might soften the hearts of those responsible for this Resolution and obtain from them the kind of answer that he wanted, namely, that instead of raiding, to use a term that is being used, the surplus from the revenue and transferring it from the old Sinking Fund to the Suspense Account, they recognised the practice that has been generally and regularly followed, even in the ease of the item of £4,250,000 which has largely been the issue round which the whole of this discussion has centred, and would give effect to the proposal contained in the Amendment. The whole of the reply given by the Secretary of State for War was largely directed to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. Runciman), and he did not deal with the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). Before we go to the-Division those in charge of this particular item should, at any rate, treat the House with that courtesy to which it is entitled and give a reply.

Question put, "That the word 'years' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 125.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[8.25 p.m.


Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brass, Captain W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Briggs, J. Harold
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briscoe, Richard George
Couper, J. B


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. sir William James
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buchan, John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Campbell, E. T.
Dawson, Sir Phillip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cassels, J. D.
Drewe, C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bethel, A.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ellis, R. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Clayton, G. C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, sir Aimed
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Long, Major Eric
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Lougher, Lewis
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandon, Lord


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Savery, S. S.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L. h.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Skelton, A. N.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Grace, John
MacIntyre, I.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. waiter E.
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Storry-Deans, R.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hanbury, C
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Harland, A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Oakley, T.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hills Major John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Philipson, Mabel
White, Lieut. Col- Sir G. Dairymple


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Winby, Colonel I P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Withers, John James


Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis
Remnant, Sir James
Womersley, W. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Iveagh, Countess of
Rice, Sir Frederick
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jackson, Sir H (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Jephcott, A. R.
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duckworth, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Ammon, Charles George
England, Colonel A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.


Baker, Walter
Forrest, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Lansbury, George


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, F. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Bromfield, William
Groves, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mackinder, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
March, S.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley1
Maxton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Connolly, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Hollins, A.
Murnin, H.


Crawfurd, H, E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Owen, Major G


Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palin, John Henry




Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Short, Alfred (Wadnesbury)
Townend, A. E.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Smillie, Robert
Viant, S. P.


Potts, John S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Ritson, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Snell, Harry
Wellock, Wilfred


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stamford, T. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. 1


Scrymgeour, E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scurr, John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sexton, James
Strauss, E. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sutton, J. E.



Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Runciman) wishes to move his Amendment—in line 5, after the word "manner," to insert the words "of debt redemption."

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not intend to move it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 123.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
18.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iveagh, Countess of


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, J. Q.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Long, Major Eric


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lougher, Lewis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ganzoni, Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bethel, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacIntyre, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Brass, Captain W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buchan, John
Hanbury, C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harvey, Majors S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chapman, Sir S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Oakley, T.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cope, Major William
Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Couper, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Philipson, Mabel


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilcher, G.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Davits, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume, Sir G. H.
Held, D. D. (County Down)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Remnant, Sir James


Drewe, C
Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Roberts, sir Samuel (Hereford)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Watts, Dr. T.


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wells, S. R.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Salmon, Major I.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Storry-Deans, R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sandon, Lord
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Withers, John James


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Womersley, W. J.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell,
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Shepperson, E. W.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Bell'st.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)



Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wadnesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Duckworth, John
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


England, Colonel A.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Thirteenth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the words "into the Exchequer," and to insert instead thereof the words:
to the National Debt Commissioners for the redemption of debt.
My object in moving this Amendment is to ask the Government for an explanation of what is meant by the Resolution on the Paper. The intention of the Government, I take it, was set out in
the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing the Budget. I presume that what the Government then intended was that the assets of this account would be taken by the Bank of England at their present value. They were, I think, being held back as a reserve which the Treasury thought necessary against the possibility of a future depreciation. The reserves which were to be retained by the Treasury amounted to £13,200,000. I gather that they are real assets, and, obviously, they
ought not to be used to meet current expenditure. The Chancellor proposed to use them as a special means of strengthening the Sinking Fund for this year and inaugurating a new debt redemption scheme. Such, I understand, was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Resolution provides that these assets shall be realised and the proceeds thereof paid into the Exchequer.
No provision is made in the Resolution for carrying out the intention declared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that intention is to be carried out, is it not necessary that there should be some proviso, at some point in this Resolution, stating that the money so retained is to be used for the redemption of debt? I take it that if the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be incorporated in the Resolution, the Resolution at present is inadequate, because it merely means that there is a transfer of this account into the Treasury and the Exchequer can use it in any way it pleases. If this Resolution is passed in its present form the Exchequer will be free to use this amount for the ordinary purposes of annual expenditure and there is no guarantee, as there should be, that it is being earmarked for the redemption of debt. The representatives of the Government will, I hope, be able to show how it is that the Resolution is inconsistent with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Certainly, before the House disposes of the Resolution we ought to have some assurance from the Government that there will he safeguards in respect of the carrying out of the intention of the Government. As the Resolution stands, it does not appear that there will be any such safeguards, and for that reason I beg to propose this Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has moved this Amendment for the purpose of getting some explanation from the representative of the Treasury, and I would like to put one or two other points. The right hon. Gentleman complained that this Resolution does not specify the purpose to which the released reserve fund has to be applied, and that if left in its present form it would give the Treasury the opportunity to apply it to any purpose
which they might think fit. But, if I remember aright, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided in the Budget of this year for the appropriation of a sum of £13,200,000 to the debt reduction scheme. It is part of the £65,000,000 that he hopes to be able to apply this year for the purpose of debt reduction. I would like to ask this question. How is this Currency Reserve Fund invested at the present time? So far as I know, it is already invested in Government stock. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Treasury to cancel these bonds to the extent of that sum as soon as the authority has been received, but it seems to me that that would be a very easy and appropriate way of dealing with it. I would like to have an answer to that point, which is supplementary to the question put by the right hon. Member.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has correctly interpreted the desire of the Government. It is not their intention to use this in any way for current expenditure, but it is their intention to devote this sum for the purpose of strengthening, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Sinking Fund for this year. These assets arise from the fact that certain fractions of the revenue from securities, from taxpayers' invested money, were retained to build up a reserve for this currency. When the purpose for which the reserve has accumulated disappears, the money quite properly returns to the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to add further limiting words to the Resolution, but there is no real necessity to add the words which he suggests. There are the most positive statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the purpose to which the money is intended to be devoted. The whole scheme of the Sinking Fund depends upon the use of the Fund for this purpose, and there is no reason for splitting up this sum from the other sums of money which we are to use for the Sinking Fund and treating it in a special way. Our general policy is to bring into a single figure the sums of money which are being devoted to the redemption of debt.
As to the question put by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the
technical steps involved in the transfer Of these sums of money, I am afraid I am not technically competent to answer, and, therefore, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to deal with that question. Personally, I speak at all with great diffidence in the presence of the financial pundits who are here assembled, and I should not dare to embark upon the discussion of these financial transactions, which I should almost certainly describe wrongly.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and gallant Member says the Chancellor has every intention of devoting this money to the redemption of debt, but does he suggest that the mere intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has legal force behind it? The only way in which you can give this intention legal force is by covering the point in the Resolution.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman shows himself singularly distrustful of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he cannot expect us to sympathise with that view, and we must ask the House to reject the limiting words which he proposes, quite unnecessarily, to insert in the Resolution.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The currency notes in existence are partly covered by banknotes, which are equal to gold, and amount to roughly £56,250,000—it is something between £55,000,000 and £57,000,000—and £5,500,000 is silver. There are, further, enough securities to make up the balance of the total amount of the currency note issue, and in addition a reserve of £13,200,000 has been accumulated, which is not required to cover the currency note issue, and so belongs to the taxpayer. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Financial Statement, he will see that the £13,200,000 appears there, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added £800,000.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I desire to carry this matter a little further than the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from this side of the House. I think that, quite beyond the question of whether or not this money is actually going to be used in the Sinking Fund, we are entitled to raise the whole ques-
tion of the propriety of regarding as part of the Sinking Fund capital assets of this character. There is reserved against the whole currency note issue a large amount of Government paper, and there seems to me to be a very grave objection to treating any part of that Government paper as assets which can in any conceivable sense be used as part of what is known as the Sinking Fund. In the first place, when this question was discussed on the Budget. I stated that in my opinion this was purely a bookkeeping transaction, but the Financial Secretary then derided my point of view, which he said was entirely erroneous. I am very glad to be fortified since then by what is perhaps the principal financial paper in the country, namely, the "Economist," which makes this remark:
In view of this reinforcement, which proposes to maintain the Sinking Fund at £65,000,000 for this year only, from the point of view of Government credit this is a paper transaction, for the reserve consists of Government securities in the hands of the Treasury, and its employment as part of the Sinking Fund merely means the cancellation by the Government of debt which it owes to itself.
The idea of the Sinking Fund means that there is being paid out a cancellation of debt, thereby conferring on the taxpayers further advantage. No advantage of any kind arises from this transaction. The money is already invested in Government securities; these securities are bearing interest, and the taxpayer is not in the smallest degree relieved by this capital asset being placed by this bookkeeping transaction to one account rather than to another. I disagree, therefore, entirely with the whole proceeding of calling this part of the Sinking Fund, when the transaction should have been completed quite outside the Sinking Fund, a mere book-keeping transaction of the Treasury.
A further issue is involved. We are shortly to have before us a Bill, which has already received its First Reading, for the transfer of this currency to the Bank of England. I should be out of Order in attempting to discuss any of its provisions now, but I suggest that, when that Bill does come before us, we shall have to consider the whole basis on which the matter is being discussed. I suggest that this provision, which it is proposed to pass at the present time, is anteceding the discussion of this House, and it may be that, when we come to that Bill, we
may not take the course of action which the Government are proposing. Until that course of action is taken, it seems to me to be entirely improper to pass this Resolution. Even that does not end the matter, because, even assuming that we in principle assent to the proposals of the Government, it does not follow that the amount which the Government think is adequate will be the amount which is adequate. There may be changes in the value of securities which may make it very undesirable to transfer any amount. There may be changes that are in prospect which may make us review the whole policy in a different way.
There is a further point which I desire to bring before the House. The whole of the fiduciary note issue has corresponding to it certain Government securities. It is quite true that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, who respects the traditions of finance which have hitherto been upheld in this country, would propose to treat as part of the Sinking Fund the whole of those securities, but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer whom we have at the present time, and with this Resolution before us,

it seems perfectly possible that, at some future time, he may propose to treat as part of the Sinking Fund these additional securities. The whole of this transaction is in accord with the devices of the Chancellor which we were discussing just now. They are not sound business, and represent nothing in the nature of an improvement in the credit of the Government. They do nothing towards a provision, which the right hon. Gentleman was telling us about on the previous Amendment, to assist by discharging the Debt, in reducing interest charges, and making it more easy for the Government to obtain loans in the future. I am entirely against the whole of this transaction, which seems to me to be an unsound and unreal transaction. I maintain that this money, instead of being used as part of the Sinking Fund, ought to have been transferred to get rid of the Debt outside the Sinking Fund altogether.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 116.

REPORT [26TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported,

AMENDMENT OF LAW.

"That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."

BRITISH INCOME TAX AND IRISH FREE STATE INCOME TAX.

"That an agreement making such alterations in the agreement made the fourteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State in respect of double Income Tax as may be necessary in consequence of the alterations in the British Income Tax Acts effected by the British Finance Act, 1927, and of the alterations contemplated in the Irish Free State Income Tax Acts be confirmed."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution, and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means upon the 1st and 2nd days of May and agreed to by the House upon those days, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. A. M. Samuel.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NATIONAL DEBT).

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, among other matters, for amending the Law relating to the National Debt, it is expedient—

(a) in substitution for the existing provisions with respect to the New Sinking Fund and the other annual sums for the National Debt now charged on the Consolidated Fund—

(i) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the following sums, that is to say:

In the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the sum of three hundred and sixty-nine million pounds;
In the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty, and in every subsequent year, the slur of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds;
(ii) to provide for the application of the sum so issued in any year in meeting the annual charges in respect of that year for the National Debt in respect of interest and management (exclusive of any interest payable in respect of national savings certificates
2026
which is otherwise provided for), and for the application of the balance of the said sum in purchasing, redeeming, or paying-off of debt;

(b) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, in such manner as they think fit, on the security of the Consolidated Fund any sums required for meeting the interest from time to time becoming payable in respect of national savings certificates."

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move to leave out lines 12 to 14, inclusive.
In view of the rather wide Debate upon the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), which wandered somewhat far afield from the central point of his Amendment, I shall confine my observations to an explanation of what is involved in the Amendment that I am now moving. We do not propose to interfere with the National Debt provisions during the current finnacial year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer [is proposing to provide £304,000,000 for interest and £65,000,000 for Sinking Fund in the current year. We are not dealing with that. In this Resolution, the House is asked to approve the proposal adumbrated in the Budget speech to the effect that in future years instead of there being a fixed sum for Sinking Fund, a combined sum shall be provided to include both interest and Sinking Fund. It is to that proposal that we are now objecting. Hon. Members will see the vital difference there is between the practice which has been in operation during the last few years, since the adoption of the Baldwin Sinking Fund, and that which is now proposed for the next financial year. Under the existing arrangement the Sinking Fund was a fixed amount, a statutory £50,000,000 a year. The cost of the interest, whatever it might be, in any particular financial year did not affect the amount which had to be provided for Sinking Fund purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to change that system by lumping together in one sum the interest charges and the Sinking Fund. Therefore, hon. Members will see, if the interest charges are higher than have been estimated, so much the less will be available for Sinking Fund purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing after this year to provide an inclusive sum of £355,000,000
for interest and Sinking Fund. Our first objection is that that sum, in view of the experience of the last few years, is likely to be altogether insufficient to provide an adequate Sinking Fund.
Last year the interest on the debt was, I believe, something like £312,000,000 or £313,000,000. Supposing next year the interest amounts to £310,000,000. There will then be available about £45,000,000 for the Sinking Fund. There is another factor of a serious nature which enters into the calculation, and it is one to reduce the Sinking Fund considerably below £40,000,000 under the Baldwin scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to make provision for the annually accruing interest of the National Savings Certificates. This year and during the last few years hon. Members will find the figures given in the annual publication relating to the National Debt, and they will see that the amount of accrued interest of £140,000,000 has been increasing at the rate of £20,000,000 a year, and no provision has hitherto been made for that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made it clear what provision he proposes for the annual interest of the National Savings Certificates, and its relation to the Sinking Fund. I have already given the Treasury notice that I should be glad if they could give some understandable explanation of what they actually expect in regard to this matter.
I am not alone in my lack of appreciation of this point, because there is not a single financial expert whose comments I have read, and I have read a great many, who has a clear understanding of how this additional interest upon the National Savings Certificates is going to affect the amount of the Sinking Fund. So far as we can understand it the amount of the Sinking Fund will be reduced by about £20,000,000 for some years to come. There are £51,000,000 required every year to meet the specific Sinking Fund undertakings. There are certain debts to which an obligation is attached for which so much a year should be put aside for the reduction of the debt, and they take over £50,000,000 a year. Let us see how far £50,000,000, which is the sum to be provided under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate next year, is going towards reducing the amount of the debt.
when it is £1,000,000 short of providing the specific Sinking Fund undertaking. No provision is made for the redemption of that vast amount of debt for which no specific fund is provided.
It may be a lessening figure after the next year, because the 10-year National Savings Certificates are likely to mature, and there may be a small falling off after a few years. At any rate, it is not likely to be less than £14,000,000, and therefore we are under an obligation to provide £51,000,000 for specific Sinking Fund undertakings and £14,000,000 for National Savings Certificates, which makes £65,000,000 which we must find even if the interest does not rise above £304,000,000. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is going to be £14,000,000 short in regard to his statutory obligations. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the importance of providing an adequate Sinking Fund. That question has been fully debated already upon the previous Amendment, but I think the House of Commons ought not to commit itself to this proposal which is not intended to operate until next year.
If we were to have a repetition of the incidents of the last few days it is highly probable that the Government would not be in office next year. Supposing another party came into office with more sound views on financial matters, and much more anxious to obtain the probity and the prestige of our national finance, I am quite sure they would not subscribe to such a proposal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now asking the House to adopt. I wish that we could have a decision on this question upon its merits by a free vote of the House of Commons and not on party lines, for I feel certain that there is no one in the House who understands the real importance of this proposal, and who at the same time is anxious to maintain the credit of the country, who would give such a proposal as this his support. I should be glad if the Secretary of State for War could produce one financial authority who has written upon this proposal during the last 10 days, since it was introduced in the Budget speech, who has given it his support. The importance of maintaining the Sinking Fund is supreme, and we are objecting to this proposal because it means a very considerable reduction of
the sum devoted to Sinking Fund purposes and because we believe the sum proposed is quite inadequate.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not propose to go at any length into this matter, because most of the points have been covered in the earlier Debates this evening. I wish to clear up the question of the interest on the Savings Certificates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House, and, in his Budget speech, cried peccavi. The right hon. Gentleman told us that all these years he had been defending the old method of dealing with the interest on Savings Certificates, and he was prepared to admit he had been wrong all the time. Having said that, as far as I can understand this question, it appears that the Financial Secretary is going to commit the same mistake. We have attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer year after year on the ground that he did not include in the interest on the debt the true amount that was accruing on the Savings Certificates. In the current year he proposes, as far as the amount of interest is concerned, to take precisely the same course that he has now admitted is wrong and to put the balance to the Sinking Fund. I suggest that that is a wholly improper proceeding, and that with respect to this figure—I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give a little attention to this point for it is a very serious one—instead of £65,000,000 which is down in this Financial Statement as Sinking Fund, I suggest, in accordance with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he ought to deduct the true amount accruing on Savings Certificates instead of the mere amount estimated as being the likely sum he will be called upon to pay during the year. That is the first point.
The second point is one which I have asked on several occasions, without receiving any answer, and I really want to get an answer on this occasion. Is this amount put down in the Financial Statement as Sinking Fund of an entirely different character from the amount put down on previous occasions? On those occasions it was the amount which was allocated to Sinking Fund, and if I understand aright the accounts this year, it is nothing of the kind on this occasion, but is merely an estimate
of the balance that will be left over after paying interest on the Debt. That is to say, this year it will be £369,000,000, less the amount expended on the Debt. In that case, when we come to the statement at the end of the year, we shall have the actual amount and this is merely an estimate. I want a clear understanding from the Government as to whether that is the right interpretation. I put that interpretation upon it. Practically no one else has done so, and I have not been able to find out whether it is correct or not.
The third point I want to raise is this matter of the inclusion in the Sinking Fund of the capital assets paid back to this country by the Dominions. I am not at all clear as to what has been the procedure hitherto. Is there any departure at all in what is being contemplated this year as against previous years? It is quite clear that when the Dominions pay back to this country part of that which has been lent to them, that is an actual asset. It ought to go to the relief of the Debt of this country, and it ought not to be regarded as part of the Sinking Fund, because it does not reduce the net Debt in the smallest degree. The actual net Debt consists of the gross Debt, less the debts that are owed to this country. If you are a business house, and you have certain debts, and against them you have book debts owing to you, it does not improve the finances of your house at all if you realise part of the book debts, and with that you pay debts you owe to other people. When the Dominions pay us some of the loans that we have advanced to them, and we put the money to reduce the debts that we owe, we are not in the smallest degree improving the finances of this country, and to regard that as Sinking Fund is a wholly erroneous view. What I want to know is whether the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this year is different from what it was before, and, if so, where the difference lies, and to suggest that if it is proposed in future to include that in this so-called £65,000,000 Sinking Fund, that is an entirely incorrect method of dealing with accounts.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think, perhaps, it would be better if I replied at once to the questions put to me. I quite agree that we have had a
considerable Debate already upon what is really more appropriate to the previous Amendment than to this Amendment. I do not complain of that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that it saves us from going over the whole ground. Let me agree with him on this point—that we are all of us conscious of the supreme importance of maintaining a Sinking Fund adequate for our purposes. I hope I may be able to show in the course of a very few moments that the Sinking Fund provision that we are making is adequate and is as much as the nation can afford. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that £310,000,000 a, year, out of the total provision of £369,000,000, was required for interest on the Debt. I understood him to say that £310,000,000 was the figure.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I do not think I said that. I said that this year he was providing £304,000,000 as interest and £65,000,000 for Sinking Fund, which was £369,000,000. I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. My observations referred to the proposals for next year. As regards this year, my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) appeared to be in difficulty as to whether this year's provision is similar to the provision of last year. I assumed that it was, and, therefore, I was not concerned with this year, because I assumed that, if the interest costs more this year than the estimate, the £65,000,000 will be paid into the Sinking Fund. It was with reference to next year, if this scheme comes into operation, that an increase in interest will cause a corresponding reduction in the amount paid to the Sinking Fund.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then £310,000,000 was the figure he mentioned, but not as applicable to this year.

Mr. SNOWDEN: As illustrative of what will happen.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not the actual figure that he anticipated, but a figure which is anticipatory—that if it ever rises to £310,000,000, then the residue between £310,000,000 and £355,000,000 would alone be available for the Sinking Fund. That is, I understand, the argument. I think I can relieve the
right hon. Gentleman of his fears. £310,000,000 is, as far as we can estimate, a figure which we need not fear. Last year's figure was £313,000,000. The Estimate this year is £304,000,000, and I am going, I hope, to be able to justify taking not the £313,000,000 of last year or the £310,000,000 of the right hon. Gentleman, but the figure which we have, in fact, taken, namely, £304,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask why we have taken £304,000,000 as the figure, and I propose to tell him. The £313,000,000 of last year included the payments that we made on account of Savings Certificates, and the net sum apart from Savings Certificates was £298,700,000. I am going to deal with Savings Certificates afterwards, and separately. I will first deal, for the sake of clarity, with the interest on the Debt other than the Savings Certificates' interest. That interest last year was £298,700,000, and we are anticipating a reduction of £8,300,000 in the figures we are taking for this year. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to come to a conclusion as to the amount of interest we are likely to have to pay, because when you have come to that conclusion then you know what is the residue left out of the composite sum for the purpose of Debt redemption, and for the purpose of dealing with the Savings Certificates.
I have first to make good the figure of our estimate of £290,400,000 for interest on the Debt this year. That is a reduction of £8,300,000 on the actual payments of last year, and the reduction is brought about in this way. There has been, as hon. Members know, an undisclosed Sinking Fund, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his Budget statement, and which will reduce the sums which have to be found for interest by £5,200,000. As long as that is understood, I need not pause to explain it in detail. That accounts for £5,200,000 of the £8,300,000 which we are estimating will be the reduction this year. That leaves me £3,100,000 to account for. Last year we paid off debt to the amount of £65,000,000, and the interest on that would approximately—not quite—amount to the £3,100,000. Therefore, I say that we are on perfectly safe ground, judging from the experience of last year, in anticipating that the payment for
interest, apart from the Savings Certificates that we have to look after, for this year, will be £290,400,000.
I have then to show what is available for the Sinking Fund proper for the redemption of capital and for looking after the Savings Certificates, and that I can show in this way. The £290,400,000, deducted from the sum that we are providing this year, namely, £369,000,000, leaves the sum of £78,600,000, and that sum is available for the double purpose of redeeming Debt and of looking after the interest on the Savings Certificates. For the period of six years, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took in his Budget statement with reference to the Sinking Fund, the amount which has to be paid to the specific Sinking Funds averages £50,250,000, and if the £50,250,000 were deducted from the £78,600,000 for this year, that would be too favourable to the view that I am putting forward. Therefore, I will not take that figure, but will take the average for the six years, which is a reduced figure of £71,750,000. Taking that figure as the average of the six years, and deducting the £50,250,000 which is the amount required for the specific Sinking Funds, it leaves me with a surplus of £21,500,000. That £21,500,000 is available for the interest on the Savings Certificates. The Savings Certificates, according to actuarial advice, call for £20,250,000 per annum, and consequently, after dealing with the interest, after dealing with the Sinking Funds attached to specific loans, after dealing with the interest on the Savings Certificates, I have a small surplus of £1,250,000 in the provision that we have made in the Sinking Funds for the next six years. I say, therefore, that we have provided for the whole of the liabilities which ought to be thrown upon the Sinking Fund.
Let me also say this. The hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here and cried, "Peccavi!" I do not know whether he knew the scope of that word. It was not only my right hon. Friend who had sinned with regard to the Savings Certificates, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Collie Valley (Mr. Snowden) shared in that sin, and, indeed, he sinned still more, and every previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, since the Savings Certificates started, has sinned in making no provision for the actual in-
terest accrued on the Savings Certificates, but merely providing for the interest on those which happened to fall due during the particular years when they were in charge. For example, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1924, provided a total amount, for redemption of Debt and Savings Certificates, of £52,000,000—…45,000,000 for actual redemption of Debt, and only £7,000,000 towards the Savings Certificates. The Savings Certificates then, as now, required, on the average, something like £20,000,000 a year, towards which the right hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on his financial purity, supplied £7,000,000 only.
As regards last year, on which my right hon. Friend is so much attacked, how does he compare? He compares in this way. He provided £65,000,000 for Sinking Fund, and, over and above that, he provided another £15,000,000 for Savings Certificates. The real comparison there is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Collie Valley provided £52,000,000 for Sinking Fund and Savings Certificates, and my right hon. Friend has provided £80,000,000—£65,000,000 for Sinking Fund and £15,000,000 for Savings Certificates. If my right hon. Friend sinned, he sinned less than half as much as the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: But did not the present Chancellor sin in the full light, whereas those who sinned before sinned while it was yet dark?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is extremely intelligent, and he can see things where others cannot; but that does not alter the facts, and the facts were just the same when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Collie Valley was in office as they are when my right hon. Friend is in office. I do not want to make any debating points on this, but I do want to reassure the House, because this is a most important provision in our finance. Hon. Members are entitled to ask themselves whether the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided for Sinking Fund is or is not enough—whether it is enough to pay the interest, whether it is enough to look after the statutory or contractual obligations with regard to Sinking Fund, whether it is enough to look after the Savings Certificates. I apologise to the House for having given so many figures,
but it has been necessary to deal with the figures in detail, and I have shown, with regard to each obligation thrown upon this Fund, that the Fund can meet that obligation, and not only meet it, but have a small surplus.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Yes, but what guarantee have you that interest is not going to go up? As the interest goes up the amount available for redemption of principal will be reduced." That is true. Of course, as regards the day-to-day money, the Treasury Bills, no man can prophesy, and I am not going to prophesy. All I can say is that we have assumed the present rate of interest, and the human probabilities, taking one month with another, are that we shall be able to average at least that, if not better. As regards the Funded Debt, is it probable that we shall have to pay more than five per cent. on the £2,000,000,000 of War Loan? I cannot believe that it is probable; I think it is more likely that the interest will be reduced than that it will be increased. We have not assumed in these calculations that it is going to be reduced, hut we have assumed that it will remain on the same basis, and on that basis we have looked after every obligation. On the other hand, if we have a slice of luck, if short money rates are reduced, we are increasing the Sinking Fund, and the position will then be better than I have stated. I think that the House can be and ought to be reassured on this point, and that it can confidently reject the Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the two specific questions that I put to him? Is this £65,000,000 that appears for the first time merely an estimate; and, secondly, what is the change in dealing with the amounts that are paid by the Dominions independently?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am sorry I did not reply. I did not wish to avoid answering the questions. As regards the Dominions, the position has been that they have been taken as repayments for what has hitherto been an undisclosed Sinking Fund. What is now to be done is that they are going to be gathered into the new Sinking Fund, and Great Britain is going to take
credit for the full amount by which she is reducing her Debt. That is all right. No one gives us credit for an undisclosed Sinking Fund; no one realises that we are paying off debt in that way. But if the amounts are put into our accounts as part of the total of Debt that is repaid, our public credit is improved. The hon. Member also asked whether the £65,000,000 this year was an estimate. Of course it is an estimate. The total figure is £369,000,000. The £65,000,000 is arrived at by deducting £304,000,000, which is the estimated amount of interest on Debt and Savings Certificates with which we are likely to have to deal. The total for these two items is £304,000,000, and if we deduct that from the £369,000,000 we get the £65,000,000, which is the Sinking Fund referred to in this account.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the amount be more than that, it will be less than £65,000,000.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, and if the amount of interest is less than that, the £65,000,000 will be increased.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: I would like, in the first, place, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for making these figures absolutely clear. I am sure that the House will join with me in congratulating him on making the figures as clear as they can be made. But I do not think he should be permitted to get away with what was purely a debating point against the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and other Chancellors of the Exchequer. It is well within his knowledge, as it is within my own, that this question of the problem of War Savings Certificates was first traced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and that it was owing to the publicity given by the Public Accounts Committee that this matter was seen to require urgent attention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was in office prior to the time when attention was called to the matter, and I do not think a debating point should have been made against him.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 102.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[9.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grotrian, H. Brent


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cooper, A. Dull
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Douglas H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.


Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hanbury, C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C M.S.
Crook shank, Cpt. H. (Lindsoy, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Haslam, Henry C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ellis, R. G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hills, Major John Waller


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hilton, Cecil


Brass, Captain W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fermoy, Lord
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Briggs, J. Harold
Fielden, E. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hudson, R. S. {Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buchan, John
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Campbell, E. T.
Gates, Percy
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cassels, J. D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Iveagh, Countess of


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prttmth, S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gower, Sir Robert
Jephcott, A. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lamb, J. Q.


Long, Major Eric
Philipson, Mabel
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Lougher, Lowis
Pitcher, G.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Power, Sir John Cecil
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Luce, Maj,-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Storry-Deans, R.


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Raine, Sir Walter
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, E.
Templeton, W. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rentoul, G. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


MacIntyre, I.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


McLean, Major A.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hall)


Making, Brigadier-General E.
Ropner, Major L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynsmouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, N. Stewart
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Monsell, Eyret, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Savery, S. S.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nuttall, Ellis
Shepperson, E. W.
Withers, John James


Oakley, T.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Womersley, W. J.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Penny, Frederick George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Amman, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hollins, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duckworth, John
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


England, Colonel A.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.


Groves, T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Resolutions agreed to.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[9.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Frederick George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Philipson, Mabel


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Darby)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pitcher, G.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold c, M. t.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hanbury, C.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bethel, A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hunderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Briggs, J. Harold
Hills, Major John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan, John
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cassels, J. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepperson, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. U.
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Long, Major Eric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lougher, Lewis
Storry-Deans, R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Strauss, E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Suetar, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacIntyre, Ian
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Drewe, C.
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Duckworth, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrendar, Sir Victor


Ellis, R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mailer, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Fermoy, Lord
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden, E. B.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M,
withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gates, Percy
Oakley, T.



Gault, Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Owen, Major G.
Captain Viscount Curzon.


Gower, Sir Robert
Pennefather, Sir John





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Lindley, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
MacLeren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.

Resolution agreed to.

Ordered,
That is be an instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to prepare and bring in the Finance Bill that they do make provision therein pursuant to this Resolution.

FINANCE BILL,

"to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendment.

Motion made, and Question "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: To leave out Clause 4.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House may remember that Clause 4 contained a power in certain events to obtain a decision on the law of rating. This suggestion came from the Central Valuation Committee, a body appointed under the Act to deal with questions arising in connection with rating, and to promote uniformity of practice. The Central Valuation Committee found themselves confronted with certain matters which they regarded as deserving of judicial decision and upon which there was diversity of practice, and they represented to my right hon. Friend that they desired if possible a speedy and inexpensive way by which such a judicial decision could be attained, especially where no ratepayer had a sufficient interest to incur the cost of the proceedings. The matter was fully discussed in the House, and also in another place, and it has been very strongly represented that the method suggested was one which might make the judiciary subject to or the advisers of the Exchequer. I need hardly assure the. House there is
no intention or, I believe, any foundation for that suggestion. But the Government, in asking the House to agree to the deletion of this Clause, cannot ignore the fact that some of the highest judicial authorities in the country have represented in addition that there may be doubt or distrust on the part of a large number of people in relation to such a matter, and they might very well consider that there were some grounds for believing that the Judiciary were in some way dependent upon Government Departments, and, therefore, it was considered far better to avoid even the appearance of such an evil that this Clause should be abandoned rather than that we should run any risk that there should be an impression amongst the public of that kind that I ask the House, therefore, to agree with the Lords in the deletion of the Clause.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I desire to congratulate the Government on taking a course which shows considerable moral courage and give many of its supporters increased confidence in them in the course they have taken in this case. It is true, as the Lord Chancellor said in another place, this Clause was an attractive proposal, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it is of the greatest importance that the independence of the justiciary should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion. It may have been an attractive proposal, but the history of this world is strewn with attractive proposals which have not been desirable. It was an attractive proposal that was made by the serpent to Eve. This proposal made by the Central Valuation Committee is very much like the historical one, and, if it had been assented to, it would have been likely to meet with equally disastrous and unfortunate results.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROVISIONAL REGULATIONS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Hon. Members will have noticed that we have on the Paper a Prayer, which in ordinary circumstances would only be taken after Eleven o'Clock. As a Motion for the Adjournment has been made, that Prayer cannot be formally moved, but I thought, on consultation with the Government, it might be convenient to get rid of it for another night if we debated the substance we want to put to the Government on the Motion for the Adjournment, and, if necessary, divide upon it just as we should if we had moved the Prayer. I hope that will be felt to be for the general convenience of Members. We desire to bring to the Government a very strong protest indeed, first of all with regard to the increasing practice of making new breaches of contract and creating new crimes and penalties by means of Regulation instead of by Act of Parliament. The Minister of Health is given very wide powers indeed for making a whole series of administrative Regulations under the National Health Insurance Act. The necessity for sonic Regulation is apparent, but in the Regulations to which we desire to draw attention, we find that there is a very vital principle involved and one which, I submit, ought not to have been dealt with by Regulation, but ought to have been the subject of amending legislation.
The Regulation of which we complain is found in the Medical Benefit Regulations (No. 2), 1928, which was laid on the Table of the House on 17th April. In these Regulations we find the extra ordinary Clause:
Clause 4 of Part I of the Third Schedule to the principal Regulations shall be read and have effect as if the following paragraph were added thereto:
'A chemist shall not give, promise or offer to any person any gift or reward (whether by way of a share or dividend on the profits of the business, or by way of discount, or rebate, or otherwise) as an inducement to, or in consideration of, his presenting an order for drugs or appliances on a prescription form provided by the Committee.'
I want hon. Members of all parties who are interested in the co-operative movement to observe what that does. It prevents in future any chemist's department of a co-operative society from continuing its co-operative practice in so far as its business is conducted under the terms of the National Health Insurance Act. Any
member of a co-operative society who is also a member of an approved society under the Health Insurance Act, who takes a health prescription to be made up in a co-operative store instead of an ordinary chemist's shop, must on no account be allowed to be given a note to the effect that he has taken goods from that store at the rate of 5d., which is the flat rate allowed to the chemist for his service.
I want to examine the arguments and reasons for this change. In 1925, the Parliamentary Committee of the cooperative movement had overtures made to it by the Retail Pharmacists' Union. They desired that co-operators should undertake that in future they would not allow the value of the prescription made up for their members under the National Health Insurance Act to count as part of their business for the final distribution of the surpluses of the co-operative societies. The co-operative committee said they could not consider such a proposal, because it would cut at the root of the basic principle on which the co-operative movement does business.

Major PRICE: Why?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Because the principle of the movement is that each member shares in the surplus of the society in relation to the amount of the business that each individual does with the society.

Major PRICE: Surely the idea is that the amount that the individual spends in the society in this connection is Government money.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not Government money that is being spent. The member who is insured under the National Health Insurance Act pays his weekly insurance contribution.

Major PRICE: Only his own part.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Secondly, his or her employer pays, and, thirdly, the State pays the smallest part. The person who contributes in that way is so far given freedom to join any approved society he or she may choose. Why on earth does the hon. Member say that it is State money and not the individual's money that is spent? I have indicated that we declined to meet the Retail Pharmacists' Union. At that time I consulted a principal official of the Ministry
on the secretarial side who was dealing with health insurance, not only on account of the overtures of the Pharmacists' Union but because representations were made by some of the health insurance committees. I obtained the assurance from the official that there was nothing in the practice of allowing a member of an approved society who was a member of the co-operative society from sharing in the rightful benefits of his mutual association, and that there was nothing which would be likely to lead to malingering as a result of his obtaining the dividends. What has happened since? We have never received a single word of communication from the Minister of Health. There has been no attempt at consultation, but a circular was issued to the local insurance committees on the 21st April which is obviously a circular from headquarters. It says that the clerk to the insurance committee is directed to give notice that persons applying, and so on,
after consultation with the Retail Pharamacists' Union as representative of the general body of those persons.
The regulations then go on to do away entirely with the present perfectly genuine trade practice of the co-operative societies in this country. This is not a small matter. There are cooperative branch chemists' departments in a hundred towns and districts. There are some millions of citizens who are not only members of approved societies but members of co-operative societies, and who want to claim the elementary right that, as they are entitled to benefit from their association with the State in the insurance scheme, so they are equally entitled to any benefit they can obtain in the mutual association scheme of their co-operative society. What is the reason for the Retail Pharmacists' Union bringing pressure on the Government? It is simply to get the Government to take sides against the body that they regard as a trade competitor.
When the Trade Disputes Bill was under discussion early last year, Members of the House will remember that I moved an Amendment to apply to certain employers' federations and the price fixing associations the same pains and penalties that the Conservative Government were inflicting upon Trades Unions if they withheld supplies from the market for the purpose of raising
prices. We have to-day the retail pharmacists nearly all linked up with the Proprietary Articles Traders' Association, which was founded by the Pharmaceutical Society with the aid of the late Sir William Glyn-Jones. They have some thousands of articles to-day which they will refuse to supply to any of the 1,400 Co-operative Societies in this country unless they first agree either to add to their retail prices whatever rebate is given by the Co-operative Society or else agree to refuse to give any rebate upon the retail price. Do not let the House forget that these are one and the same people in fact. The Retail Pharmacists' Union are to be taken with the others. A note appeared in the Labour paper, the "Daily Herald," the other day to the effect that this matter was to be raised in the House of Commons, and I have a letter here from Mr. Corrall, a member of the Retail Pharmacists' Union, who takes exception to the attitude which we are putting to the House to-night. He says:
It is the old Proprietary Articles Traders' Association's principle again that no personal dividend may be allowed on proprietary articles.
This gentleman who writes to me is not only a member of the Retail Pharmacists' Union but a member of the Pharmaceutical Committee for Middlesex under the National Health Insurance Act, and doubtless he is one of the persons who have been bringing pressure to bear on the Government. Please observe that we have, of course, no redress in law, although we feel that we ought to have redress in law against great bodies like the Proprietary Articles Traders' Association who act in restraint of trade by withholding supplies from the market under such unreasonable conditions. We have often urged the Government to give protection against what I regard as a malpractice, but when it comes, not merely to failing to get redress of that grievance by legislation, and the Government taking the side of those people by introducing a Regulation and laying it upon the Table of the House, it is going too far. What has already been perpetrated with regard to chemical proprietary articles is also to be enforced on Co-operative Societies by the dictates of the Government in respect of the prescriptions which have to be obtained by the poorest of the poor and
the general members of approved societies through the Co-operative movement. I regard this action by the Government as an amazing breach of what the attitude of the Government ought to be in such a circumstance as that.
I imagine that about the only real ground of defence that the Parliamentary Secretary can possibly find is that it has been stated that considerations are given for prescriptions to be taken to certain chemists, and that then corruption is likely to result, malingering may take place, and so on. I wish the Members of the House would examine that in advance. I have already indicated that in respect of these prescriptions there is a flat rate scale. It was at one time 6d. per prescription. It has been reduced to 5d., so that where a dividend check is given by the Co-operative Society upon a prescription made up under the Health Insurance Act, the dividend check for the sale of 5d. is handed to the person getting the prescription. How many prescriptions will have to be used up by a person under the Health Insurance Act before he can get any substantial monetary advantage to the extent of leading to malingering.
Moreover, if there exists a real danger of considerations being offered to aid malingering, what are the doctors doing? I understood that it was the duty of those who administer the National Health Insurance Act to see that no prescriptions were given unless there were proper cases of illness to be treated. Surely, it is the duty of the doctors upon the panel to see that they give prescriptions only where there are genuine cases to be treated. These conditions ought not to be laid upon us in such a way that we cannot give a proper share of our cooperative mutual benefits to any of our members who have a legitimate right to them. I could say a great deal more on the subject, but other hon. Members desire to speak. I regard the action of the Government in dealing with this matter by regulation as very undesirable, if not reprehensible, and I regard the further fact that they should do it upon consultation with the Retail Pharmacists' Union alone, and in spite of the conversation between myself and the officials of the Ministry in 1925, without any consultation with a movement covering 5,000,000 of people who are affected by
this regulation, and who are the only people who are got at by the regulation, as being even more reprehensible.

Sir K. WOOD: I think that I shall be able to satisfy the House that my right hon. Friend and my Department have brought forward a regulation which is not directed against any particular body, association or individuals, but is in the true interests of the proper administration of the National Health Insurance funds. I would direct the attention of the House to the terms of the regulation:
A chemist shall not give, promise or offer to any person any gift or reward, whether by way of a share or dividend on the profits of the business or by way of discount or rebate or otherwise, as an inducement to or in consideration of his presenting an order for drugs or appliances on a prescription form provided by the Committee.
Anyone who is interested, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is, in the question of National Health Insurance, knows full well that the position of the administration of the drug fund in connection with National Health Insurance has given serious anxiety to the Government and the approved societies. There are some 11,000,000 of people in England and Wales who come under the ordinary drug arrangements with chemists. The average cost of drugs and appliances, so far as the National Health Insurance Act is concerned, has very steadily and very seriously increased. For instance, in 1916 the total cost of drugs and appliances supplied by chemists was £634,651. In 1926, that figure had risen to a sum of £1,729,078, and my Department have been driven to the conclusion, which I think is shared by those people who have been concerned with the administration of National Health Insurance, that whilst a certain increase was, no doubt, due to increased sickness, there was considerable evidence of what is called extravagant prescribing.
The difficult situation was accentuated because under the National Health Insurance Act there was only a certain sum which was permitted for the cost of drugs. Directly that sum came to be exceeded a very serious question arose as to where the increase in cost was to come from.
The question that confronted my Department was whether there should be a revision of the drug tariff or whether the fees ought to be reduced. If either of these matters were to be taken in hand, it would undoubtedly be very serious, especially as far as the smaller chemist businesses were concerned. Therefore, my Department had several consultations with the Retail Pharmacists' Union. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained of that, but when I tell the House that this union represents some 8,000 chemists up and down the country—and I think the hon. Member himself mentioned that there were about 100 chemist businesses in connection with the cooperative societies—I think it will be felt that the Ministry of Health, in approaching the responsible union representative of the great mass of the chemists of the country, was doing the right and proper thing. I should have thought indeed it was a course which would have commended itself to the hon. Gentleman opposite.
We said to this union, "Now obviously this case has to be met. Are you prepared yourselves—because that undoubtedly is the best thing to do—to take the matter in hand and set your own house in order." The representatives of the Retail Pharmacists' Union gave an undertaking to my Department that they would be responsible for the proper administration of this fund for the amount specified in the Statute—in other words, that they themselves, subject to proper conditions to which I shall refer later, would see that the administration of the fund was conducted within its proper financial limits and that the service was adequate for its purpose. But, as was perfectly natural, they said that if they were going to take this unlimited liability, proper conditions must be laid down as to the administration of this drug tariff. They said, "We are considerably concerned with the improper practice, because there is no other word to describe it, of certain chemists who offer inducements to insured people who come to them for prescriptions—who offer such people certain presents or gifts in money." Here, may I say that so far from this proposal being directed against the co-operative societies in particular, it is an endeavour to deal with an evil in the administration of this fund, and to show the House that there is no attack upon the co-
operative societies. I wish to cite certain instances of what occurs in relation to this important benefit. I have here a leaflet which was distributed broadcast in a particular area of London. I will not give the name, but the leaflet is to this effect:
Insured persons will receive a free gift, value 6d., for two weeks only, 19th September to 3rd October, 1927. Every person bringing a panel prescription to be dispensed at the above address will receive, free of charge, certain items value for 6d.
Then there is the further statement:
No matter where you live or who your doctor is, you are quite free to bring your prescription to Mr.—. He is the most reliable chemist in the district.
This is the gentleman who is offering 6d.
He is really interested in your particular case, and will give free advice to patients if required. Please bring your prescriptions as early in the day as possible. Note only address. No branches.
I hold in my hand another leaflet, issued by a chemist, who offers in the same way another inducement to insured persons to go to him for a particular prescription: and I have another here of a draw among insured persons, and stating that the insured person who took his prescription to the particular chemist, if he got the winning number, would receive a solid gold wristlet watch.
I should think it was apparent to every Member of the House that that is a most undesirable practice in the administration of the Insurance Act, and we have laid down in this Regulation that these inducements and gifts are not to be given. I do not think I need state any further the reason for this Regulation. Any gift or inducement of that kind, whether by a co-operative society or under circumstances of this kind, undoubtedly interferes with the freedom of choice of the particular person concerned, as it gives a bias against those who do not offer such gifts or inducements, and I think that everybody will agree that once we direct a Regulation of that kind against this particular practice, we obviously cannot, in fairness to the other chemists who administer the Act, permit inducements to be given by co-operative societies in the same connection. In other words, we want to be perfectly fair so far as the administration of this Act is concerned, but we desire to prevent what I think will be agreed is a very reprehensible
practice, and that is the sole reason for our making this particular Regulation.

Mr. BARNES: It was quite unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to read out cases where private pharmacists have abused their responsibilities to the public. We are quite familiar with practices of that sort. Trade and industry of every character are honeycombed with them, and it is because we realise that that we have started our co-operative societies. Further, the specific instances which the Parliamentary Secretary has quoted are not covered by the Regulation which he previously explained. The paragraph, reads:
Whether by way of a share of or dividend on the profits of the business or by way of discount or rebate or otherwise.
The cases of wristlet watches and things of that sort, which we condemn very strongly in practice, are not covered by that Regulation. We do not quarrel with the Pharmacists Union. We are quite prepared to allow the Ministry of Health to deal with any cases of abuse that may occur among the pharmacists of this country, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to negotiate with that union let him do so. Our objection is that, under cover of negotiating with that union, he should introduce a Regulation that strikes right at the very root and foundation of our co-operative trade in this country.
As a matter of fact, the only bodies that would really be seriously injured in connection with these Regulations,, are the co-operative societies; and I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it does not matter whether the Pharmacists' Union has 8,000 or 80,000 members, the fact remains that the principles upon which the co-operative movement is conducted are entirely different from those of the Pharmacists Union. We claim the right of any person who cares to associate with the co-operative movement, which is perfectly legal and has not yet been brought within the bounds of illegality in this country, to be entitled to the financial benefits. It is as well that the Financial Secretary should realise that on this occasion he cannot get away with an explanation of that sort. This process of eating into the trade of the, co-operative movement, first in respect of: one article and then of another, is growing too rapidly for us to permit it to go on much longer; and those of us who
represent the co-operative movement, and the movement as a whole, mean to take a very serious view of these things. In recent years, the policy of the Proprietary Articles Traders' Association is being extended in a variety of directions, but we at least are entitled to come to a Government Department and see that that Department gives fair play to an organisation like the Co-operative Society. I want to ask the Minister this question: Can he quote any case where a co-operative society has abused the responsibility that they have under the National Health Insurance Act? Have these abuses, which he says that the Department has now to tackle, occurred in the co-operative societies engaged in this business?

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: Yes, by forcing Co-operative Wholesale Society products on their patients.

Mr. BARNES: We are quite prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman in his own division if he says the Co-operative movement adopts unfair practices, and the people of Leyton will soon give him his answer. The point I want to emphasise is that the Parliamentary Secretary has built up his case on the ground that the cost of this particular service has been artificially increased by malpractices on the part of the profession. I would ask him, in return, whether those malpractices have occurred inside the Co-operative movement, and if it has not, and in so far as there is a separate body, separate in principle and practice from the Pharmacists' Union, I want to ask him why he should bring the Co-operative movement into these Regulations? We shall resist in every possible way the Regulations, which are going to injure our trade.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has not said the last word on this subject, and that this does not mean that the decision is final regarding these Regulations, because, if it does, in all probability the Parliamentary Secretary has made a speech to-night which will cost him his seat at the next Election. The Parliamentary Secretary said 8,000 chemists are members of the Pharmacists' Society, but there are 5,250,000 members of co-operative societies, and I am not sure that
the majority of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman are not members of co-operative societies. Hon. Members will realise, whether they are in favour of the co-operative movement or not, that it is a very effective and efficient organisation, and that organisation will be used to bring to the knowledge of its members what has happened to-night in connection with this matter.
This is a much more important Debate than most Members realise and the consequences will be much more far-reaching. There is not a Member of the House who has not got a branch of a co-operative society in his constituency, and as the co-operative movement has 5,250,000 members one can reckon that something like 17,000,000 people are now attached to co-operative societies. The Parliamentary Secretary has replied to the case by reading out hand-bills which, on his own admission, have no application to any co-operative society. The hand-bills about prize competitions are issued by private enterprise. I think every co-operator would join with the right hon. Gentleman in agreeing that there has been, as revealed by him, malpractices in this connection, but not on the part of co-operative societies. If there had been it was the right hon. Gentleman's business to bring forward some evidence of it. He has not produced any evidence up to now. He said the Ministry has consulted with the 8,000 members of the Pharmacists' Union. We do not complain of that, we think the Ministry were wise to do it, but we think the co-operative movement is now big enough and important enough not to have been ignored—at least it might have been consulted. If regulations were found to be necessary in order to prevent malpractices, and the co-operative movement was not in question—and it is not alleged by the Minister that any co-operative society has been guilty of any malpractices—why alter ale regulations to their definite detriment without even consulting them or informing them?
The House is entitled to some further explanation on this matter. Occasionally in this House questions are asked by hon. Members opposite who are alarmed because co-operative societies, and the members of the societies as well as the societies as organisations, are showing some indications of taking political
action. This action of the Ministry of Health will be of considerable help in forcing the members of co-operative societies to take political action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why do you object to the action?"] Because it is an unfair action, because it is an action which the Parliamentary Secretary himself has described as not being directed against co-operative societies, though the net effect of it is to handicap and cripple co-operative societies by preventing their members—

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: From paying dividends.

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member who is so excited on this matter might tell me why a member of a co-operative society, who buys his goods, his furniture, his clothing, his bread and all the commodities ho can get from his own cooperative stores, which he with other members owns, and gets a, dividend as the result of that collective buying, should be debarred from making purchases of his medicines.

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: He does not buy them. The State and the employers help to buy them.

Mr. MORRISON: I always understood that a man had a free choice of doctor and a free choice of dentist, and there has never been any suggestion, either by the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else, that those who go to co-operative societies for their medicines under the National Health Insurance Act do not get as good value as they get from other chemists. Therefore, this action will deprive insured people from going to the place where they think they will get the best value. It will handicap the business of co-operative societies, because the whole of their business is arranged on what is called the dividend system. I think before many months are over the Members of this House will realise that this matter is much more important than hon. Members opposite seem to think. The co-operative movement does not desire to pick a quarrel with the Minister of Health. On the contrary, in many health matters the co-operators have been pioneers in this country. The co-operative dairies are the finest equipped, from a health point of view, in the country, and we have for years been
pioneers in the early closing movement. I was hoping to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary would not have said a final word on this question to-night, but would have waited to receive detailed representations in regard to this question. I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he prepared to receive representations as to the effect these Regulations will have, and is he ready to consider whether any modification is possible in order that co-operative societies will not be handicapped? If the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to that modest request, we can only say that what he is doing is a method of attacking co-operative societies.

Captain O'CONNOR: It seems to me that the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) has made a clear threat of blackmail in regard to these Regulations, and I do not think a threat of that kind should he allowed to pass unchallenged. When that kind of argument is used we are prepared to say that there are people ready to spend the dividends of co-operators in political propaganda in defence of a cause which has no natural sympathy for the cooperative movement, and those funds are being used for the purpose of damaging a party for whom co-operators ought to have a great deal of sympathy. Co-operators on this occasion are not doing themselves justice. I can appreciate that when a man goes to a co-operative store and pays 5d. for an article of which 4d. is its value and 1d. represents the profit, he is entitled under the system of mutual trading to receive subsequently either 1d. or a portion of it back again. That is not the case we are discussing. Here the case is that a man who is sick goes to a co-operative store and obtains something for which he himself does not pay, and the profit on the transaction is a profit which properly belongs not to him but to various other parties, including the State and his employer.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What happens to the profit on the transaction if he goes across the street and makes his purchases from Mr. Smith?

Captain O'CONNOR: In that case, the State ha-s some interest in the transactions. If the contention of the hon. Member was that the profit which was being made should be returned to the
State I could understand it, but to suggest that this profit should be returned in the form of a dividend to the person who is receiving medicine for which presumably he stands in need seems to me not only to be taking something of the unpalatable nature of the medicine away, but it is putting a positive inducement before persons to go on taking medicines which they otherwise would not take, in order that ultimately they may find themselves with the consolation of some form of dividend. For these reasons I trust the Minister of Health will remain firm in his Regulation, and that no one on this side will be deterred by threats of political blackmail from whatever source they may come.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The few words I have to say will be in the nature of an appeal. I would not like an insured person who cares to go to a co-operative chemist not to have a right to go through the enforcement of this Regulation. This Regulation has been issued under Section 93 of the Act of 1924. Under Section 94 of the same Act the right hon. Gentleman is bound to receive any objections stated in writing from any body of people who object to the Order. He has met deputations before, and I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that my hon. Friends this evening have stated what is a really very strong case against the Order, he is not prepared under Section 94 to receive a deputation? The co-operative representatives will be very glad to state their case in writing to him, but may I ask whether it is not possible to receive a deputation in order to clear away this difficulty? Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the effect of this Order must mean that not a single insured member in the country will be entitled in law any longer to go to any co-operative chemist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The right hon. Gentleman has explained that the draft Order used the word "dividend," and as far as the Order goes the inducement of a dividend however small must not be allowed. Therefore, I say, whatever the intention of the Minister may be—and I may admit that I do not think it is the intention of the Minister that these people shall not go to a co-operative chemist—but whatever is the intention of the draft Order, undoubtedly it will prevent any insured
person going to a co-operative chemist with an insurance prescription.
Therefore, I do ask if it is not possible to proceed in the way provided under Section 94. He has another alternative. If he cannot proceed in that way, I am not sure whether there is not the right under law to ask for a public inquiry under Section 94 (a). He would do good service to get away from this quarrel between private enterprise and the cooperative trade, and to remember that the National Health Insurance Scheme was established for the purpose of helping people who are in sickness and disease.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think it is a very great pity that this question should he made the subject of a faction fight at all. It is a misfortune that the Co-operative movement should be used on either side for propaganda or for political party purposes. It seems to me that this question is purely one for the House to decide, on considerations of fair play and nothing else. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it seemed to me that he made out a complete answer to the point to which he addressed himself, but it was not, the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). If hon. Members will bear with me for a moment while I read the regulation again, leaving out words that do not matter, the right hon. Gentleman will see exactly what I mean, and perhaps he will say if I leave out any relevant words. The regulation says this:
A chemist shall not give promise or offer to any person any gift or reward … as an inducement … to or in consideration of his presenting an order for drugs or appliances on a prescription form provided by the Committee.
The exhibits from which the right hon. Gentleman read were appeals made by certain druggists to people under the National Health Insurance scheme, to come to them with prescriptions or orders for appliances based on prescriptions; that is to say, they were inducements offered to these people, and not offered to the ordinary clients of the chemist. Is that so?

Sir K. WOOD: They were public to anybody.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Yes, but they were public only to people under the National Health Insurance Scheme; that is to say, they were not inducements offered to ordinary members of the public who were clients of the chemist. That seems to me to be a very important point, because the inducements offered in these publications were special inducements to National Health Insurance patients. As I understand it, the advantages given by the co-operative movement are not special advantages given to those who happen to be National Health Insurance patients; all that they get will be the normal advantages given to any member of the co-operative movement. [Interruption.] It does seem to me that this point is important. It does not really matter, from the point of view of the argument I am trying to put forward, whether they are formal members or members of the general public. To members of the society they are not offering any special inducement because they happen to be National Health Insurance patients, and it seems to me that this regulation as it stands, especially if it introduced the word "special" before the word "inducement," could be so read, and should be so read, that no one should be penalised if they take advantage of the facilities offered by the co-operative movement.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: This Order of the Minister raises a very important question, and the remarks of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr.

Crawford) need, I think, a little clarification. The co-operative societies do not deal only with their members. They are perfectly prepared to deal with the ordinary public, but, as a rule, they charge them lower prices. This was brought home to me very early in my career, in a transaction which I had with a co-operative society. I was not a member of the society and, having ordered a certain material during the time I was in practice, I got a bill which I thought was excessive; and, when I inquired into the matter, they said, "Oh, but you are a member of the society, and so we charge you more, because your money pays the dividend." [Interruption.] I will give the actual circumstances. I was buying oats for my horses, and the ordinary price of oats at that time was 18s. a sack, but they charged me 21s. I went across to the co-operative society and asked them why they charged me 21s., and they said, "Because you are a member." I said, "You only charge 18s. to the public," and they replied, "Yes, 3s. goes to the dividend." Therefore, I was helping to pay the dividends of the society. What is going to happen in this case is that the co-operative society will be offering a definite bribe to the public to go to them and have their prescriptions made up.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 97.

Division No. 110.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Cassels, J. D.
Ellis, R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Applin, Colonel R, V. K.
Cecill, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermoy, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fielden, E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clayton, G. C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cope, Major William
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bethel, A.
Couper, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff Sir Park


Briggs, J. Harold
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Buchan, John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Burman, J. B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grotrian, H. Brent


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Savery, S. S.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Hammersley, S. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harland, A.
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Henry C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hilton, Cecil
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pennefather, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jephcott, A. R.
Philipson, Mabel
Warrender, Sir Victor


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pitcher, G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Preston, William
Watts, Dr. T.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raine, Sir Walter
Wells, S R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Lamb, J. Q.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Long, Major Eric
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lumley, L. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandeman, N. Stewart



MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McLean, Major A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Major Sir George Hennessy and


MacMillan, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hollins, A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Charleton, H. C.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S P.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'clock.